# Official Journal C 86/8 Ap

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 86 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 498 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 86

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 498 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Justice |
| | COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic of Germany and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — The name feta — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Validity) | 1 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2005 in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Principle of non-discrimination — Health services of home respiratory treatments — Admission condition — Evaluation criteria) | 1 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) — Transaction within the territory of the country — Sale by auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for temporary importation — Auctioneers' commission) | 2 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Purchase of immovable property — Investment financed by a secured loan — Right of cancellation — Effects of cancellation) | 2 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2006 in Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 64/221/EEC — National of a third country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State — Right of entry and residence — Restriction imposed on grounds of public policy — Schengen Information System — Alert issued for the purposes of refusing entry) | 3 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Private security undertakings and services — Conditions — Legal personality — Minimum share capital — Security — Minimum number of staff — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of professional qualifications) | 4 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-533/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 — Directive 2003/93/EC — Choice of legal basis) | 4 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary — Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement) | 5 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Definition of putting into circulation of the product — Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary) | 5 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2006 in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery operations — Concept of notifier — Notifier's obligations) | 6 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio in La Cascina Soc. coop. arl. and Others v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio G.f.M. v Ministero della Difesa and Others (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 29, first paragraph, subparagraphs (e) and (f) — Obligations of service providers — Payment of social security contributions and taxes ) | 7 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation — Right of cancellation) | 7 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2005 in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Community Customs Code — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Meaning of legally owed) | 8 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people) | 8 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-473/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie in Plumex v Young Sports NV (Judicial cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Articles 4 to 11 and 14 — Service of judicial documents — Service through agencies — Service by post — Relationship between the methods of transmission and service — Precedence — Time-limit for an appeal) | 9 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel in Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member State — Scope of E 101 certificate) | 9 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case C-456/05: Action brought on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany | 10 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case C-14/06: Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities | 11 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case C-40/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) By order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg | 11 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case C-43/06: Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic | 12 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case C-44/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 12 October 2005 in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) | 12 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case C-51/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 13 January 2006 in Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L. | 13 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case C-56/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 31 January 2006 in Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg | 13 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case C-61/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 13 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case C-62/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11 January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda. | 14 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case C-63/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of that court of 20 December 2005 in UAB Profisa v Muitines Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Ministerijos | 14 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case C-65/06: Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium | 15 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case C-70/06: Action brought on 7 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic | 15 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case C-75/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic | 16 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case C-79/06: Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic | 16 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case C-81/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 17 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case C-82/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 17 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case C-83/06: Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic | 18 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case C-89/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic | 18 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case C-90/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic | 19 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case C-93/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria | 19 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case C-94/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria | 19 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case C-98/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson | 20 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case C-100/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 20 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case C-101/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic | 21 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case C-105/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 21 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case C-106/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 21 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case C-107/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic | 22 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case C-110/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium | 22 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case C-113/06: Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 23 |
| | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case T-202/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Alecansan v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark COMP USA — Earlier national figurative mark COMP USA — Lack of similarity of the goods and services — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 24 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case T-251/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Albrecht and Others v Commission (Health policy — Veterinary medicinal products — Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin — Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations — Competence) | 24 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case T-273/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Merck Sharp & Dohme and Others v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for products containing the substance enalapril — Commission decision ordering amendment of the summary of the product's characteristics — Competence) | 25 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case T-293/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Giulietti v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Exclusion from the competition — Illegality of the competition notice — Inadmissibility — Professional experience — Full-time activity) | 25 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case T-206/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark containing the verbal element PERFIX — Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element cerfix — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 26 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark GERONIMO STILTON — Opposition — Stay of proceedings — Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought — Withdrawal of the opposition) | 26 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2006 — TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission (Public contracts — Community procedure for call for tenders — Recruitment of short-term experts responsible for providing technical assistance for the benefit of third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of tenders) | 27 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case T-249/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Fintecna v Commission (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Measure against which actions may be brought — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility) | 27 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case T-48/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Schneider Electric v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Resumption of the control procedure following annulment by the Court of First Instance of a decision prohibiting a concentration — Initiation of the detailed examination phase — Abandonment of the concentration — Closure of the control procedure — Action for annulment — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Interest in bringing an action — Inadmissible) | 27 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case T-278/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council (Dumping — Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China — Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility) | 28 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case T-280/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council (Dumping — Imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in China — Amendment of anti-dumping measures previously imposed — Action for annulment — Objection as to admissibility) | 28 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case T-42/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 — Komninou and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State's conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Treatment of the complaint by the Commission — Principle of sound administration) | 29 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case T-396/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Admissibility — Urgency — Absence) | 29 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case T-397/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Urgency — Absence) | 29 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case T-417/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Endesa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Urgency) | 30 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case T-437/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Brink's Security Luxembourg v Commission (Application for interim measures — Urgency — Absence) | 30 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case T-8/06: Action brought on 12 January 2006 — FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin v Commission | 31 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case T-14/06: Action brought on 16 January 2006 — K-Swiss/OHIM | 31 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case T-18/06: Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM | 32 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case T-21/06: Action brought on 21 January 2006 — Germany v Commission | 32 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case T-24/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission | 32 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case T-28/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann v OHIM | 33 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case T-29/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM | 33 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case T-30/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM | 34 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case T-31/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM | 34 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case T-35/06: Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Honig Verband v Commission | 35 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case T-39/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities | 35 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case T-42/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament | 36 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case T-43/06: Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v Commission of the European Communities | 37 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case T-44/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 — Commission v Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants | 37 |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case T-45/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission | 38 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case T-46/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission | 39 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case T-48/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM | 40 |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Case T-50/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Ireland v Commission | 40 |
| 2006/C 086/0 | Case T-53/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission | 41 |
| 2006/C 086/1 | Case T-59/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission | 42 |
| 2006/C 086/2 | Case T-61/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission | 43 |
| 2006/C 086/3 | Case T-62/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v Commission | 44 |
| 2006/C 086/4 | Case T-63/06: Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA | 45 |
| 2006/C 086/5 | Case T -330/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2006 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM | 46 |
| | EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL |
| 2006/C 086/6 | Case F-124/05: Action brought on 16 December 2005 — A v Commission | 47 |
| 2006/C 086/7 | Case F-2/06: Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities | 48 |
| 2006/C 086/8 | Case F-12/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions | 48 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

2006/C 086/1

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic of Germany and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture — Geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs — The name feta — Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 — Validity)

1

2006/C 086/2

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 October 2005 in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Directive 92/50/EEC — Public service contracts — Principle of non-discrimination — Health services of home respiratory treatments — Admission condition — Evaluation criteria)

1

2006/C 086/3

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) — Transaction within the territory of the country — Sale by auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for temporary importation — Auctioneers' commission)

2

2006/C 086/4

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (Consumer protection — Doorstep selling — Purchase of immovable property — Investment financed by a secured loan — Right of cancellation — Effects of cancellation)

2

2006/C 086/5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 31 January 2006 in Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Freedom of movement for persons — Directive 64/221/EEC — National of a third country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State — Right of entry and residence — Restriction imposed on grounds of public policy — Schengen Information System — Alert issued for the purposes of refusing entry)

3

2006/C 086/6

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — Restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services — Private security undertakings and services — Conditions — Legal personality — Minimum share capital — Security — Minimum number of staff — Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC — Recognition of professional qualifications)

4

2006/C 086/7

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-533/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 — Directive 2003/93/EC — Choice of legal basis)

4

2006/C 086/8

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (Association Agreement EEC-Hungary — Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities — Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)

5

2006/C 086/9

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (Directive 85/374/EEC — Liability for defective products — Definition of putting into circulation of the product — Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)

5

2006/C 086/0

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 February 2006 in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (Waste — Transfer of waste — Waste intended for recovery operations — Concept of notifier — Notifier's obligations)

6

2006/C 086/1

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio in La Cascina Soc. coop. arl. and Others v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio G.f.M. v Ministero della Difesa and Others (Public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC — Article 29, first paragraph, subparagraphs (e) and (f) — Obligations of service providers — Payment of social security contributions and taxes )

7

2006/C 086/2

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (Consumer protection — Contracts negotiated away from business premises — Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation — Right of cancellation)

7

2006/C 086/3

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 20 October 2005 in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (Community Customs Code — Repayment or remission of import or export duties — Meaning of legally owed)

8

2006/C 086/4

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (Sixth VAT Directive — Exemptions — Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people)

8

2006/C 086/5

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 9 February 2006 in Case C-473/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie in Plumex v Young Sports NV (Judicial cooperation — Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 — Articles 4 to 11 and 14 — Service of judicial documents — Service through agencies — Service by post — Relationship between the methods of transmission and service — Precedence — Time-limit for an appeal)

9

2006/C 086/6

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 January 2006 in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel in Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (Social security for migrant workers — Determination of the legislation applicable — Workers posted to another Member State — Scope of E 101 certificate)

9

2006/C 086/7

Case C-456/05: Action brought on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

10

2006/C 086/8

Case C-14/06: Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities

11

2006/C 086/9

Case C-40/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) By order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

11

2006/C 086/0

Case C-43/06: Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

12

2006/C 086/1

Case C-44/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 12 October 2005 in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

12

2006/C 086/2

Case C-51/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 13 January 2006 in Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L.

13

2006/C 086/3

Case C-56/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 31 January 2006 in Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

13

2006/C 086/4

Case C-61/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

13

2006/C 086/5

Case C-62/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11 January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

14

2006/C 086/6

Case C-63/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of that court of 20 December 2005 in UAB Profisa v Muitines Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Ministerijos

14

2006/C 086/7

Case C-65/06: Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

15

2006/C 086/8

Case C-70/06: Action brought on 7 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

15

2006/C 086/9

Case C-75/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

16

2006/C 086/0

Case C-79/06: Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

16

2006/C 086/1

Case C-81/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

17

2006/C 086/2

Case C-82/06: Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

17

2006/C 086/3

Case C-83/06: Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

18

2006/C 086/4

Case C-89/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

18

2006/C 086/5

Case C-90/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

19

2006/C 086/6

Case C-93/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

19

2006/C 086/7

Case C-94/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

19

2006/C 086/8

Case C-98/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

20

2006/C 086/9

Case C-100/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

20

2006/C 086/0

Case C-101/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

21

2006/C 086/1

Case C-105/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

21

2006/C 086/2

Case C-106/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

21

2006/C 086/3

Case C-107/06: Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

22

2006/C 086/4

Case C-110/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

22

2006/C 086/5

Case C-113/06: Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

23

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2006/C 086/6

Case T-202/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Alecansan v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the figurative Community trade mark COMP USA — Earlier national figurative mark COMP USA — Lack of similarity of the goods and services — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

24

2006/C 086/7

Case T-251/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Albrecht and Others v Commission (Health policy — Veterinary medicinal products — Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin — Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations — Competence)

24

2006/C 086/8

Case T-273/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Merck Sharp & Dohme and Others v Commission (Medicinal products for human use — Marketing authorisation for products containing the substance enalapril — Commission decision ordering amendment of the summary of the product's characteristics — Competence)

25

2006/C 086/9

Case T-293/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Giulietti v Commission (Officials — Open competition — Exclusion from the competition — Illegality of the competition notice — Inadmissibility — Professional experience — Full-time activity)

25

2006/C 086/0

Case T-206/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Figurative mark containing the verbal element PERFIX — Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element cerfix — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

26

2006/C 086/1

Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM (Community trade mark — Word mark GERONIMO STILTON — Opposition — Stay of proceedings — Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought — Withdrawal of the opposition)

26

2006/C 086/2

Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2006 — TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission (Public contracts — Community procedure for call for tenders — Recruitment of short-term experts responsible for providing technical assistance for the benefit of third countries benefiting from external aid — Rejection of tenders)

27

2006/C 086/3

Case T-249/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Fintecna v Commission (European Social Fund — Reduction of financial assistance — Action for annulment — Measure against which actions may be brought — Preparatory measure — Inadmissibility)

27

2006/C 086/4

Case T-48/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Schneider Electric v Commission (Competition — Concentrations — Resumption of the control procedure following annulment by the Court of First Instance of a decision prohibiting a concentration — Initiation of the detailed examination phase — Abandonment of the concentration — Closure of the control procedure — Action for annulment — Acts adversely affecting the applicant — Interest in bringing an action — Inadmissible)

27

2006/C 086/5

Case T-278/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council (Dumping — Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China — Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier — Action for annulment — Objection of inadmissibility)

28

2006/C 086/6

Case T-280/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council (Dumping — Imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in China — Amendment of anti-dumping measures previously imposed — Action for annulment — Objection as to admissibility)

28

2006/C 086/7

Case T-42/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 — Komninou and Others v Commission (Action for damages — Non-contractual liability — Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State's conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations — Treatment of the complaint by the Commission — Principle of sound administration)

29

2006/C 086/8

Case T-396/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Admissibility — Urgency — Absence)

29

2006/C 086/9

Case T-397/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Urgency — Absence)

29

2006/C 086/0

Case T-417/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Endesa v Commission (Application for interim measures — Control of concentrations between undertakings — Urgency)

30

2006/C 086/1

Case T-437/05 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Brink's Security Luxembourg v Commission (Application for interim measures — Urgency — Absence)

30

2006/C 086/2

Case T-8/06: Action brought on 12 January 2006 — FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin v Commission

31

2006/C 086/3

Case T-14/06: Action brought on 16 January 2006 — K-Swiss/OHIM

31

2006/C 086/4

Case T-18/06: Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

32

2006/C 086/5

Case T-21/06: Action brought on 21 January 2006 — Germany v Commission

32

2006/C 086/6

Case T-24/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission

32

2006/C 086/7

Case T-28/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann v OHIM

33

2006/C 086/8

Case T-29/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

33

2006/C 086/9

Case T-30/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

34

2006/C 086/0

Case T-31/06: Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

34

2006/C 086/1

Case T-35/06: Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Honig Verband v Commission

35

2006/C 086/2

Case T-39/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities

35

2006/C 086/3

Case T-42/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

36

2006/C 086/4

Case T-43/06: Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v Commission of the European Communities

37

2006/C 086/5

Case T-44/06: Action brought on 14 February 2006 — Commission v Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants

37

2006/C 086/6

Case T-45/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission

38

2006/C 086/7

Case T-46/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission

39

2006/C 086/8

Case T-48/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

40

2006/C 086/9

Case T-50/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Ireland v Commission

40

2006/C 086/0

Case T-53/06: Action brought on 21 February 2006 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission

41

2006/C 086/1

Case T-59/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission

42

2006/C 086/2

Case T-61/06: Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

43

2006/C 086/3

Case T-62/06: Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v Commission

44

2006/C 086/4

Case T-63/06: Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA

45

2006/C 086/5

Case T -330/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2006 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM

46

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2006/C 086/6

Case F-124/05: Action brought on 16 December 2005 — A v Commission

47

2006/C 086/7

Case F-2/06: Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

48

2006/C 086/8

Case F-12/06: Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions

48

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 086/9 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 74, 25.3.2006 | 49 |

III   Notices

2006/C 086/9

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 74, 25.3.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

49

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

EN

---

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

in Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic of Germany and Kingdom of Denmark v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Agriculture - Geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs - The name ‘feta’ - Regulation (EC) No 1829/2002 - Validity)

(2006/C 86/01)

Language of the cases: German and Danish

In Joined Cases C-465/02 and C-466/02: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: W.-D. Plessing, Agent, assisted by M. Loschelder, Rechtsanwalt) applicant in Case C-465/02; Kingdom of Denmark (represented by: J. Molde and J. Bering Liisberg, Agents) applicant in Case C-466/02, supported by: French Republic, (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb, Agents), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson, Agent) v Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.L. Iglesias Buhigues and H. C. Støvlbæk, and A. M. Rouchaud-Joët and S. Grünheid, Agents) supported by: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I.-K. Chalkias, Agents) — applications for annulment pursuant to Article 230 EC, brought on 30 December 2002 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions;

| 2. | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs in relation to Case C-465/02 and the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs in relation to Case C-466/02; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs in relation to Case C-465/02 and the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs in relation to Case C-466/02;

| 3. | Orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Hellenic Republic, the French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 55, 08.03.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/1

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 27 October 2005

in Case C-234/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional in Contse SA and Others v Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud) (1)

(Freedom of establishment - Freedom to provide services - Directive 92/50/EEC - Public service contracts - Principle of non-discrimination - Health services of home respiratory treatments - Admission condition - Evaluation criteria)

(2006/C 86/02)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-234/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain), made by decision of 16 April 2003, received at the Court on 2 June 2003, in the proceedings between Contse SA, Vivisol Srl, Oxigen Salud SA and Instituto Nacional de Gestión Sanitaria (Ingesa), formerly Instituto Nacional de la Salud (Insalud), interested parties: Air Liquide Medicinal SL, Sociedad Española de Carburos Metálicos SA — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it ruled:

Article 49 EC precludes a contracting authority from providing, in the tendering specifications for a public contract for health services of home respiratory treatments and other assisted breathing techniques, first, for an admission condition which requires an undertaking submitting a tender to have, at the time the tender is submitted, an office open to the public in the capital of the province where the service is to be supplied and, second, for evaluation criteria which reward, by awarding extra points, the existence at the time the tender is submitted of oxygen production, conditioning and bottling plants situated within 1 000 kilometres of that province or offices open to the public in other specified towns in that province, and which, in the case of a tie between a number of tenders, favours the undertaking which was previously providing the service concerned, in so far as those criteria are applied in a discriminatory manner, are not justified by imperative requirements in the general interest, are not suitable for securing the attainment of the objective which they pursue or go beyond what is necessary to attain it, which is a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 02.08.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3), and 16(1) - Transaction within the territory of the country - Sale by auction of works of art imported under the arrangements for temporary importation - Auctioneers' commission)

(2006/C 86/03)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-305/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: C. Jackson and R. Caudwell, Agents, and N. Paines QC) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 July 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the commission received by auctioneers on sales by auction of works of art, antiques and collectors' items imported under the arrangements for temporary importation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by applying a reduced rate of value added tax to the commission received by auctioneers on sales by auction of works of art, antiques and collectors' items imported under the arrangements for temporary importation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2(1), 5(4)(c), 12(3) and 16(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 1999/49/EC of 25 May 1999;

| 2. | Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 20.09.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/2

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

in Case C-350/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Bochum, Germany in Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte v Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG (1)

(Consumer protection - Doorstep selling - Purchase of immovable property - Investment financed by a secured loan - Right of cancellation - Effects of cancellation)

(2006/C 86/04)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-350/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Landgericht Bochum, (Germany), made by decision of 29 July 2003, received at the Court on 8 August 2003, in the proceedings between Elisabeth Schulte, Wolfgang Schulte and Deutsche Bausparkasse Badenia AG — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President of the Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as excluding from the scope of the Directive contracts for the sale of immovable property even where they are merely a component of an investment scheme financed by a loan for which the negotiations prior to the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-selling situation, both as regards the contract for the purchase of the immovable property and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that purchase. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 3(2)(a) of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as excluding from the scope of the Directive contracts for the sale of immovable property even where they are merely a component of an investment scheme financed by a loan for which the negotiations prior to the conclusion of the contract were held in a doorstep-selling situation, both as regards the contract for the purchase of the immovable property and the loan agreement serving solely to finance that purchase.

| 2. | Directive 85/577 does not preclude national rules which limit the effect of cancellation of the loan agreement to the avoidance of that agreement, even in the case of investment schemes in which the loan would not have been granted at all without the acquisition of the immovable property. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Directive 85/577 does not preclude national rules which limit the effect of cancellation of the loan agreement to the avoidance of that agreement, even in the case of investment schemes in which the loan would not have been granted at all without the acquisition of the immovable property.

| 3. | Directive 85/577 does not preclude:






  — | a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof; |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

Directive 85/577 does not preclude:

—

a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof;

| — | a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately; |
| --- | --- |

—

a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately;

| — | national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate.
  However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with it obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 4 of Directive 85/577 requires Member States to ensure that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisation of those risks. |
| --- | --- |

—

national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate.

However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with it obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 4 of Directive 85/577 requires Member States to ensure that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisation of those risks.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 01.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/3

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 31 January 2006

in Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons - Directive 64/221/EEC - National of a third country who is the spouse of a national of a Member State - Right of entry and residence - Restriction imposed on grounds of public policy - Schengen Information System - Alert issued for the purposes of refusing entry)

(2006/C 86/05)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-503/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez, Agent) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 November 2003 — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, J. Malenovský, Presidents of Chambers, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász, G. Arestis, A. Borg Barthet and M. Ilešič, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 31 January 2006, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by refusing entry into the territory of the States party to the Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 14 June 1985 at Schengen, to Mr Farid, and by refusing to issue a visa for the purpose of entry into that territory to Mr Farid and Mr Bouchair, nationals of a third country who are the spouses of Member State nationals, on the sole ground that they were persons for whom alerts were entered in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing them entry, without first verifying whether the presence of those persons constituted a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by refusing entry into the territory of the States party to the Agreement on the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on 14 June 1985 at Schengen, to Mr Farid, and by refusing to issue a visa for the purpose of entry into that territory to Mr Farid and Mr Bouchair, nationals of a third country who are the spouses of Member State nationals, on the sole ground that they were persons for whom alerts were entered in the Schengen Information System for the purposes of refusing them entry, without first verifying whether the presence of those persons constituted a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1 to 3 of Council Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21, 24.01.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 26 January 2006

in Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 49 EC - Restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services - Private security undertakings and services - Conditions - Legal personality - Minimum share capital - Security - Minimum number of staff - Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC - Recognition of professional qualifications)

(2006/C 86/06)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-514/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and L. Escobar Guerrero, Agents) v Kingdom of Spain (represented by: E. Braquehais Conesa, Agent) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 December 2003 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in which it:

| 1. | Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 on private security services and Royal Decree No 2364/1994 of 9 December 1994 approving the Regulation on private security services which impose a series of requirements on foreign private security undertakings for the pursuit of their activities in Spain, namely the obligation:






  — | to be constituted as legal persons; |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by maintaining in force provisions of Law No 23/1992 of 30 July 1992 on private security services and Royal Decree No 2364/1994 of 9 December 1994 approving the Regulation on private security services which impose a series of requirements on foreign private security undertakings for the pursuit of their activities in Spain, namely the obligation:

—

to be constituted as legal persons;

| — | to have a specific minimum share capital; |
| --- | --- |

—

to have a specific minimum share capital;

| — | to pay a security to a Spanish body; |
| --- | --- |

—

to pay a security to a Spanish body;

| — | to employ a minimum number of workers, insofar as the undertaking in question carries out its activities in fields other than the transport and distribution of explosives; |
| --- | --- |

—

to employ a minimum number of workers, insofar as the undertaking in question carries out its activities in fields other than the transport and distribution of explosives;

| — | generally, for members of their staff, to hold a special administrative authorisation issued by the Spanish authorities, and
  by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure recognition of attestations of professional competence for the pursuit of the activity of private detective, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, firstly, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and, secondly, Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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; |
| --- | --- |

—

generally, for members of their staff, to hold a special administrative authorisation issued by the Spanish authorities, and

by failing to adopt the provisions necessary to ensure recognition of attestations of professional competence for the pursuit of the activity of private detective, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under, firstly, Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and, secondly, Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Council Directive 89/48/EEC 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;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;

| 4. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/4

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 26 January 2006

in Case C-533/03 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 - Directive 2003/93/EC - Choice of legal basis)

(2006/C 86/07)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-533/03 Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal, Agent) v Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert and E. Karlsson, Agents) supported by: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, Agent, and by A. Collins SC), Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Fernandes, Agent), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: R. Caudwell, Agent, and by D. Wyatt QC) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 19 December 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in which it:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs;

| 3. | Orders Ireland, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland, the Portuguese Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 06.03.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon in Sfakianakis AEVE v Elliniko Dimosio (1)

(Association Agreement EEC-Hungary - Obligation of mutual assistance between customs authorities - Post-clearance recovery of import duties following revocation in the State of export of the movement)

(2006/C 86/08)

Language of the case: Greek

In Joined Cases C-23/04 to C-25/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Protodikio Athinon (Greece), made by decision of 30 September 2003, received at the Court on 26 January 2004, in the proceedings between Sfakianakis AEVE and Elliniko Dimosio — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Articles 31(2) and 32 of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 3/96 of the Association Council between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, of 28 December 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the State of import are bound to take account of judicial decisions delivered in the State of export on actions brought against the results of verification of the validity of goods movement certificates conducted by the customs authorities of the State of export, once they have been informed of the existence of those actions and the content of those decisions, regardless of whether the verification of the validity of the movement certificates was carried out at the request of the customs authorities of the State of import. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 31(2) and 32 of Protocol 4 to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, as amended by Decision No 3/96 of the Association Council between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, of 28 December 1996, are to be interpreted as meaning that the customs authorities of the State of import are bound to take account of judicial decisions delivered in the State of export on actions brought against the results of verification of the validity of goods movement certificates conducted by the customs authorities of the State of export, once they have been informed of the existence of those actions and the content of those decisions, regardless of whether the verification of the validity of the movement certificates was carried out at the request of the customs authorities of the State of import.

| 2. | The effectiveness of the abolition of the imposition of customs duties under the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved by the decision of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, precludes administrative decisions imposing the payment of customs duties, taxes and penalties taken by the customs authorities of the State of import before the definitive result of actions brought against the findings of the subsequent verification have been communicated to them, when the decisions of the authorities of the State of export which initially issued the EUR.1 certificates have not been revoked or annulled. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The effectiveness of the abolition of the imposition of customs duties under the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Hungary, of the other part, concluded and approved by the decision of the Council and the Commission of 13 December 1993, precludes administrative decisions imposing the payment of customs duties, taxes and penalties taken by the customs authorities of the State of import before the definitive result of actions brought against the findings of the subsequent verification have been communicated to them, when the decisions of the authorities of the State of export which initially issued the EUR.1 certificates have not been revoked or annulled.

| 3. | The answer to the first three questions is not affected by the fact that neither the Greek customs authorities nor the Hungarian customs authorities sought convocation of the Association Committee pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol No 4, as amended by Decision 3/96. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The answer to the first three questions is not affected by the fact that neither the Greek customs authorities nor the Hungarian customs authorities sought convocation of the Association Committee pursuant to Article 33 of Protocol No 4, as amended by Decision 3/96.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 20.03.2004.

OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-127/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division in Declan O'Byrne v Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA (1)

(Directive 85/374/EEC - Liability for defective products - Definition of ‘putting into circulation’ of the product - Supply by the producer to a wholly owned subsidiary)

(2006/C 86/09)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-127/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (United Kingdom), made by decision of 18 November 2003, received at the Court on 8 March 2004, in the proceedings between Declan O'Byrne and Sanofi Pasteur MSD Ltd, formerly Aventis Pasteur MSD Ltd, Sanofi Pasteur SA, formerly Aventis Pasteur SA, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, K. Lenaerts, E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 11 of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products, is to be interpreted as meaning that a product is put into circulation when it is taken out of the manufacturing process operated by the producer and enters a marketing process in the form in which it is offered to the public in order to be used or consumed.

| 2. | When an action is brought against a company mistakenly considered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party may be substituted for another in the context of such an action. A national court examining the conditions governing such a substitution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal scope of Directive 85/374, as established by Articles 1 and 3 thereof. |
| --- | --- |

2.

When an action is brought against a company mistakenly considered to be the producer of a product whereas, in reality, it was manufactured by another company, it is as a rule for national law to determine the conditions in accordance with which one party may be substituted for another in the context of such an action. A national court examining the conditions governing such a substitution must, however, ensure that due regard is had to the personal scope of Directive 85/374, as established by Articles 1 and 3 thereof.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.04.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/6

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 16 February 2006

in Case C-215/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret in Marius Pedersen A/S v Miljøstyrelsen (1)

(Waste - Transfer of waste - Waste intended for recovery operations - Concept of ‘notifier’ - Notifier's obligations)

(2006/C 86/10)

Language of the case: Danish

In Case C-215/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Østre Landsret (Denmark), made by decision of 14 May 2004, received at the Court on 21 May 2004, in the proceedings between Marius Pedersen A/S and Miljøstyrelsen — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 16 February 2006, the operative part of which is as follows:

| 1. | The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown or that the number of waste producers is so great and the individual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The phrase ‘where this is not possible’ in Article 2(g)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community must be interpreted as meaning that the simple fact that a person is a licensed collector does not confer on him the status of notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery. However, the situation that the producer of the waste is unknown or that the number of waste producers is so great and the individual contribution of each of them so small that it would be unreasonable for each individually to be required to notify the transport of the waste may justify the licensed collector being considered as the notifier of a shipment of waste for recovery;

| 2. | The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article 7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of information on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that required by the rules in the State of dispatch; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The competent authority of dispatch is entitled, pursuant to Article 7(2) and the first indent of Article 7(4)(a) of Regulation No 259/93, to object to a shipment of waste in the absence of information on the conditions of recovery of that waste in the State of destination. However, the notifier cannot be required to prove that the recovery in the State of destination will be equivalent to that required by the rules in the State of dispatch;

| 3. | The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic scrap’; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The first indent of Article 6(5) of Regulation No 259/93 must be interpreted as meaning that the obligation to supply information relating to the composition of the waste is not satisfied by the notifier declaring a category of waste under the heading ‘electronic scrap’;

| 4. | The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to run when the competent authorities of the State of destination have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irrespective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the information set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional information from the notifier. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The period in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 259/93 begins to run when the competent authorities of the State of destination have sent the acknowledgement of receipt of the notification, irrespective of the fact that the competent authorities of the State of dispatch do not consider that they have received all of the information set out in Article 6(5) of that regulation. The effect of the expiry of that time-limit is that the competent authorities can no longer raise objections to the shipment or request additional information from the notifier.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 24.7.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio in La Cascina Soc. coop. arl. and Others v Ministero della Difesa and Others and Consorzio G.f.M. v Ministero della Difesa and Others (1)

(Public service contracts - Directive 92/50/EEC - Article 29, first paragraph, subparagraphs (e) and (f) - Obligations of service providers - Payment of social security contributions and taxes )

(2006/C 86/11)

Language of the case: Italian

In Joined Cases C-226/04 and C-228/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy), made by decisions of 22 April 2004, received at the Court on 2 June 2004, in the proceedings between La Cascina Soc. coop. arl, Zilch Srl (C-226/04) and Ministero della Difesa, Ministero dell'Economia e delle finanze, Pedus Service, Cooperativa Italiana di Ristorazione soc. coop. arl (CIR), Istituto nazionale per l'assicurazione contro gli infortuni (INAIL), and between Consorzio G.f.M. (C-228/04) and Ministero della Difesa, La Cascina Soc. coop arl, the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Schiemann, N. Colneric, K. Lenaerts and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

Subparagraphs (e) and (f) of the first paragraph of Article 29 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts do not preclude a national law or administrative practice according to which a service provider, who has not fulfilled obligations relating to social security contributions and taxes by having paid in full when the period prescribed for submitting the request to participate in the contract expires, may subsequently regularise his position

| — | pursuant to a tax amnesty or leniency measures adopted by the State, or |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to a tax amnesty or leniency measures adopted by the State, or

| — | pursuant to an administrative arrangement of payment in instalments or debt relief, or |
| --- | --- |

—

pursuant to an administrative arrangement of payment in instalments or debt relief, or

| — | by bringing administrative or legal proceedings, |
| --- | --- |

—

by bringing administrative or legal proceedings,

provided that, within the period prescribed by national law or administrative practice, he provides evidence that he has benefited from such measures or arrangement or that he has brought such proceedings within that period.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, of 24.7.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/7

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 25 October 2005

in Case C-229/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen: Crailsheimer Volksbank eG v Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke (1)

(Consumer protection - Contracts negotiated away from business premises - Loan agreement linked to property purchase concluded in a doorstep-selling situation - Right of cancellation)

(2006/C 86/12)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-229/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht in Bremen (Germany), made by decision of 27 May 2004, received at the Court on 2 June 2004, in the proceedings between Crailsheimer Volksbank eG and Klaus Conrads, Frank Schulzke and Petra Schulzke-Lösche, Joachim Nitschke, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and P. Kuris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 25 October 2005, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that when a third party intervenes in the name of or on behalf of a trader in the negotiation or conclusion of a contract, the application of the Directive cannot be made subject to the condition that the trader was or should have been aware that the contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1 of the Directive. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Articles 1 and 2 of Council Directive 85/577/EEC of 20 December 1985 to protect the consumer in respect of contracts negotiated away from business premises must be interpreted as meaning that when a third party intervenes in the name of or on behalf of a trader in the negotiation or conclusion of a contract, the application of the Directive cannot be made subject to the condition that the trader was or should have been aware that the contract was concluded in a doorstep-selling situation as referred to in Article 1 of the Directive.

| 2. | Directive 85/577, and Article 5(2) thereof in particular, does not preclude:






  — | a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Directive 85/577, and Article 5(2) thereof in particular, does not preclude:

—

a requirement that a consumer who has exercised his right to cancel under the Directive must pay back the loan proceeds to the lender, even though according to the scheme drawn up for the investment the loan serves solely to finance the purchase of the immovable property and is paid directly to the vendor thereof;

| — | a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately; |
| --- | --- |

—

a requirement that the amount of the loan must be paid back immediately;

| — | national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate; |
| --- | --- |

—

national legislation which provides for an obligation on the consumer, in the event of cancellation of a secured credit agreement, not only to repay the amounts received under the agreement but also to pay to the lender interest at the market rate;

However, in a situation where, if the Bank had complied with its obligation to inform the consumer of his right of cancellation, the consumer would have been able to avoid exposure to the risks inherent in investments such as those at issue in the main proceedings, Article 4 of the Directive requires Member States to ensure that their legislation protects consumers who have been unable to avoid exposure to such risks, by adopting suitable measures to allow them to avoid bearing the consequences of the materialisation of those risks.

---

(1)  OJ C 201, of 7.8.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 20 October 2005

in Case C-247/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven in Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken (1)

(Community Customs Code - Repayment or remission of import or export duties - Meaning of ‘legally owed’)

(2006/C 86/13)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-247/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 28 May 2004, received at the Court on 11 June 2004, in the proceedings between Transport Maatschappij Traffic BV and Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen and J. Klčcka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 October 2005, in which it ruled:

For the purposes of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code, import duties or export duties are legally owed where a customs duty has been incurred within the conditions laid down by Chapter 2 of Title VII of that regulation and where the amount of those duties could be determined by the application of the Common Customs Tariff of the European Communities in accordance with the provisions of Title II of that regulation.

The amount of the import duties or export duties remains legally owed within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 236(1) of Regulation No 2913/92 even where that amount has not been communicated to the debtor in accordance with Article 221(1) of that regulation.

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/8

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-415/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Staatssecretaris van Financiën v Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Exemptions - Supply of services linked to welfare and social security work and protection and education of children or young people)

(2006/C 86/14)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-415/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 September 2004, received at the Court on the same day, in the proceedings between Staatssecretaris van Financiën and Stichting Kinderopvang Enschede — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský, A. La Pergola, A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

Article 13A(1)(g) and (h) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, read together with Article 13A(2)(b) thereof, must be interpreted as meaning that services as an intermediary between persons seeking, and persons offering, a childcare service, provided by a body governed by public law or an organisation recognised as charitable by the Member State concerned, may benefit from exemption under those provisions only where:

| — | the childcare service itself meets the conditions for exemption laid down in those provisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

the childcare service itself meets the conditions for exemption laid down in those provisions;

| — | that service is of such a nature or quality that parents could not be assured of obtaining a service of the same value without the assistance of an intermediary service such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

that service is of such a nature or quality that parents could not be assured of obtaining a service of the same value without the assistance of an intermediary service such as that which is the subject-matter of the dispute in the main proceedings;

| — | the basic purpose of the intermediary services is not to obtain additional income for the service provider by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for value added tax. |
| --- | --- |

—

the basic purpose of the intermediary services is not to obtain additional income for the service provider by carrying out transactions which are in direct competition with those of commercial enterprises liable for value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 9 February 2006

in Case C-473/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie in Plumex v Young Sports NV (1)

(Judicial cooperation - Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 - Articles 4 to 11 and 14 - Service of judicial documents - Service through agencies - Service by post - Relationship between the methods of transmission and service - Precedence - Time-limit for an appeal)

(2006/C 86/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-473/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Articles 68 EC and 234 EC from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium), made by decision of 22 October 2004, received at the Court on 9 November 2004, in the proceedings between Plumex and Young Sports NV — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. Malenovský (Rapporteur), A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr and A. Borg Barthet, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 9 February 2006, in which it ruled:

| 1. | Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish any hierarchy between the method of transmission and service under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and that under Article 14 thereof and, consequently, it is possible to serve a judicial document by one or other or both of those methods. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that it does not establish any hierarchy between the method of transmission and service under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and that under Article 14 thereof and, consequently, it is possible to serve a judicial document by one or other or both of those methods.

| 2. | Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, where transmission and service are effected by both the method under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and the method under Article 14 thereof, in order to determine vis-à-vis the person on whom service is effected the point from which time starts to run for the purposes of a procedural time-limit linked to effecting service, reference must be made to the date of the first service validly effected. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Regulation No 1348/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that, where transmission and service are effected by both the method under Articles 4 to 11 thereof and the method under Article 14 thereof, in order to determine vis-à-vis the person on whom service is effected the point from which time starts to run for the purposes of a procedural time-limit linked to effecting service, reference must be made to the date of the first service validly effected.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/9

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 26 January 2006

in Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeidshof te Brussel in Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid v Herbosch Kiere NV (1)

(Social security for migrant workers - Determination of the legislation applicable - Workers posted to another Member State - Scope of E 101 certificate)

(2006/C 86/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-2/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Arbeidshof te Brussel (Belgium), made by decision of 23 December 2004, received at the Court on 5 January 2005, in the proceedings between Rijksdienst voor Sociale Zekerheid and Herbosch Kiere NV — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of N. Colneric (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Fourth Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 January 2006, in which it ruled:

As long as it has not been withdrawn or declared invalid by the authorities of the Member State which issued it, an E 101 certificate issued under Article 11(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation No 1408/71, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2195/91 of 25 June 1991, binds the competent institution and the courts of the Member State in which the workers are posted. Consequently, a court of the host Member State of such workers is not entitled to scrutinise the validity of an E 101 certificate as regards the certification of the matters on the basis of which such a certificate was issued, in particular the existence of a direct relationship, within the meaning of Article 14(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and members of their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 2001/83, as amended by Regulation No 2195/91, read in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Decision No 128 of the Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers of 17 October 1985 concerning the application of Articles 14(1)(a) and 14b(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, between the undertaking established in a Member State and the workers which it has posted to another Member State, during the period of their posting.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/10

---

Action brought on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-456/05)

(2006/C 86/17)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 December 2005 by Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Sabine Grünheid, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty by applying the transitional rules and rules to protect established rights, on the basis of which psychotherapists obtain admission or a permit to practise the profession independently of the applicable rules governing admission to practise the profession, only to those psychotherapists who have carried out their activities under German statutory sickness insurance schemes and by not taking into account the comparable or similar professional activities of psychotherapists in other Member States. |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 43 of the EC Treaty by applying the transitional rules and rules to protect established rights, on the basis of which psychotherapists obtain admission or a permit to practise the profession independently of the applicable rules governing admission to practise the profession, only to those psychotherapists who have carried out their activities under German statutory sickness insurance schemes and by not taking into account the comparable or similar professional activities of psychotherapists in other Member States.

| 2. | order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under the German transitional rule concerning admission to practise the profession of psychotherapist independently of need, a psychotherapist is only authorised to practise in a place of his choice without there being a need for him if he has in the past carried out, under a statutory sickness insurance scheme, previous activities which are worthy of protection. According to the Commission that rule infringes the right of establishment enshrined in Article 43 of the EC Treaty in that only activities under a German statutory sickness insurance scheme are taken into account in examining previous activities which are worthy of protection and the issue of whether the therapeutic care given to insured persons in other Member States is of equal value or is to be regarded as being similar is not examined.

The provisions of the EC Treaty regarding the right of establishment are applicable in this case. The fact that the rule in dispute is part of German Social Security Law does not preclude that. Although Member States are entitled to develop freely their social security systems and also to settle the issue of the conditions under which psychotherapists can take part in the care provided under health insurance schemes, those rules should be in conformity with Community law provisions and, in particular, with the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty. This German transitional rule does not meet that requirement, as it lends itself to deterring persons from other Member States who wish to establish themselves and who have previously primarily treated insured persons in other Member States, from moving their practices to Germany.

This German rule does not fulfil the justifying conditions which were established by the Court with respect to national measures which impede the right of establishment guaranteed by the Treaty. On the one hand it causes indirect discrimination as its nature is such that it tends to affect psychotherapists from other Member States more than German psychotherapists. Whereas German psychotherapists in the territory of the country have, namely, as a rule, also begun practising under a German statutory sickness insurance scheme, psychotherapists from other Member States have carried out no corresponding previous activities in Germany. On the other hand the restriction which the transitional rule places on those applicants who have carried out previous activities in Germany during the reference period is disproportionate: the purpose of the rule, which is to limit the number of psychotherapists who are authorised to practise independently of need, is not jeopardised if comparable activities or activities of equal value, which the migrants have carried out in other Member States, are acknowledged as previous activities which are worthy of protection. On those grounds, this case concerns a restriction of the right of establishment which is not to be regarded as justified.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/11

---

Action brought on 11 January 2006 by European Parliament against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-14/06)

(2006/C 86/18)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 January 2006 (lodged by fax on 6 January 2006) by the European Parliament, represented by Mr K. Bradley, Mr A. Neergaard and Mrs I. Klavina, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment; |
| --- | --- |

1.

annul Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 amending for the purpose of adapting to the technical progress the Annex to Directive 2002/95/EC of the European Parliament and of Council on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment;

| 2. | order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Commission Decision 2005/717/EC of 13 October 2005 (1) exempts decabromodiphenyl ether (‘DecaBDE’) from the marketing prohibition imposed by Article 4(1) of European Parliament and Council Directive 2002/95 (2) on the restriction of the use of certain hazardous substances in electrical and electronic equipment. The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to respect the conditions laid down for such exemptions by Article 5(1) of that Directive and has therefore exceeded the powers it derives from that provision. In so far as there exists scientific uncertainty as to the health and environmental consequences of DecaBDE use, the Commission has committed a manifest error in assessing the scientific evidence and failed to respect the precautionary principle. By extending the exemption to all the polymeric applications of DecaBDE, without exception, it has breached the principle of proportionality. The Commission has failed to provide a proper statement of reasons for its decision to exempt DecaBDE.

---

(1)  Official Journal L 271, 15/10/2005 P. 0048 - 0050

(2)  Official Journal L 037, 13/02/2003 P. 0019 - 0023

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) By order of that court of 19 January 2006 in Juers Pharma Import-Export GmbH v Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg

(Case C-40/06)

(2006/C 86/19)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finzgericht München (Germany) of 19 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 25 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Jules Pharma Import-Export GmbH and Oberfinanzdirektion Nürnberg on the following question:

Is the Combined Nomenclature (‘the CN’) as amended by Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1789/2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p.1) of 11 September 2003 (1) amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical Nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff to be interpreted as meaning that Melatonin capsules, put up as dietary supplements in the absence of authorisation under the provisions on medical products, are to be classified under heading 3004?

---

(1)  OJ L 281, p.1

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/12

---

Action brought on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-43/06)

(2006/C 86/20)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 January 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Pedro Andrade, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that the Portuguese Republic, by requiring persons who hold professional qualifications in architecture awarded by other Member States to pass an admission test to the Portuguese Institute of Architects when they are not members of the relevant professional body of any other Member State, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Portuguese Republic, by requiring persons who hold professional qualifications in architecture awarded by other Member States to pass an admission test to the Portuguese Institute of Architects when they are not members of the relevant professional body of any other Member State, has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2 and 10 of Directive 85/384/EEC; (1)

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission is bringing Treaty infringement proceedings against the Portuguese Republic for failing fully to implement Directive 85/384.

Although the Directive was implemented by Decreto-Lei No 14/90 of 8 January, the publication of Decreto-Lei No 176/98 was a retrograde step.

On the basis of Decreto-Lei No 176/98, the Portuguese Institute of Architects is requiring architects trained in other Member States, who are not registered with the respective professional bodies of those States, to pass an admission test.

Architects from other Member States who are not registered with their respective professional bodies must therefore take examinations in architecture in the host State, since they cannot practise their profession in Portugal unless they are registered with the Institute of Portuguese Architects.

For the Commission, that situation is unlawful, since it is contrary to the provision made by Directive 85/384. The directive does not draw a distinction, as the Portuguese State does, between an academic qualification and a professional title. Recognition of diplomas under the sectoral directives is automatic. If the training fulfils the requirements of Articles 3 and 4 of Directive 85/834, the Member State must recognise the qualification, allowing the architect from the home Member State to practise his or her profession using the title of architect.

---

(1)  Council Directive 85/384/EEC of 10 June 1985 on the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture, including measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to provide services (OJ 1985 L 223, p. 15).

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/12

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg by order of that court of 12 October 2005 in Gerlach & Co. mbH v Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder)

(Case C-44/06)

(2006/C 86/21)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht des Landes Brandenburg (Finance Court of the Land of Brandenburg) (Germany) of 12 October 2005, received at the Court Registry on 30 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Gerlach & Co. mbH and Hauptzollamt Frankfurt (Oder) on the following question:

Is a national customs administration entitled to enter duties in its accounts before granting the period provided for in Article 11a(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87, (1) as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90, (2) with regard to the place where the offence or irregularity has been committed and to make that period legally binding for the first time during appeal proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ L 107, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 137, p. 21.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno by order of that court of 13 January 2006 in Alberto Bianchi v De Robert Calzature S.R.L.

(Case C-51/06)

(2006/C 86/22)

Language of the case: Italian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Livorno of 13 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 1 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Alberto Bianchi and De Robert Calzature S.R.L. on the following questions:

| 1) | Given that the content of Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653 (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, can Article 19 be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for the national implementing legislation to provide that the indemnity owed to an agent is payable under a collective agreement binding on its signatories, without regard to the conditions set out in the two indents of paragraph 2(a) of Article 17, and is calculated not in accordance with the criteria to be found in the directive but in accordance with the criteria set out in the collective economic agreement itself, with the result that, in many cases, the level of the indemnity to be paid would have to be significantly lower than the ceiling provided for in the directive. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Given that the content of Article 17 of Council Directive 86/653 (1) of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents, can Article 19 be interpreted as meaning that it is permissible for the national implementing legislation to provide that the indemnity owed to an agent is payable under a collective agreement binding on its signatories, without regard to the conditions set out in the two indents of paragraph 2(a) of Article 17, and is calculated not in accordance with the criteria to be found in the directive but in accordance with the criteria set out in the collective economic agreement itself, with the result that, in many cases, the level of the indemnity to be paid would have to be significantly lower than the ceiling provided for in the directive.

| 2) | Should the indemnity be calculated individually by estimating the further commissions that the agent could have earned in the years following the termination of the contract on the basis of the new customers he has brought or the growth in business that he has generated, using the criterion of equity only to adjust the amount, or are other, composite methods of calculation permitted, which make greater use of the criterion of equity. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Should the indemnity be calculated individually by estimating the further commissions that the agent could have earned in the years following the termination of the contract on the basis of the new customers he has brought or the growth in business that he has generated, using the criterion of equity only to adjust the amount, or are other, composite methods of calculation permitted, which make greater use of the criterion of equity.

---

(1)  OJ L 382 of 31.12.1986, p. 17.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/13

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf by order of that court of 31 January 2006 in Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH v Hauptzollamt Duisburg

(Case C-56/06)

(2006/C 86/23)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Finance Court, Düsseldorf) of 31 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 2 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Euro Tex Textilverwertung GmbH and Hauptzollamt (Principal Customs Office) Duisburg on the following question:

Do the matching operations described in more detail in the present order go beyond simple operations of matching for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Protocol 4 concerning the definition of the concept of ‘originating products’ and methods of administrative cooperation, as amended by Decision No 1/97 of the Association Council, Association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, of 30 June 1997? (1)

---

(1)  OJ 1997 L 221, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/13

---

Action brought on 3 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-61/06)

(2006/C 86/24)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to submit its national annual report on the promotion of biofuels before 1 July 2004, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to submit its national annual report on the promotion of biofuels before 1 July 2004, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport;

| 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 report referred to in Article 4(1) of the directive should have been sent to the Commission before 1 July 2004. To date, the Commission has not received any information from the Italian authorities.

The Commission therefore maintains that as matters now stand Italy has not communicated the report on the promotion of the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels for transport required under Article 4(1) of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo by judgment of that court of 11 January 2006 in the proceedings Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas v Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda.

(Case C-62/06)

(2006/C 86/25)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo of 11 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 6 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Fazenda Pública — Director Geral das Alfândegas and Z.F. ZEFESER — Importaçao e Exportaçao de Produtos Alimentares, Lda. on the following questions:

| 1. | For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979, is classification by the customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that that classification should be made by the competent criminal court? |
| --- | --- |

1.

For the purposes of Article 3 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1) of 24 July 1979, is classification by the customs authority as ‘an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings’ sufficient, or is it instead necessary that that classification should be made by the competent criminal court?

| 2. | In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prosecutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead necessary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant criminal proceedings? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the latter hypothesis, is it sufficient for the competent criminal authority (in the case of Portugal, the Public Prosecutor's Office) simply to lay a charge, or is it instead necessary that the debtor should be convicted in the relevant criminal proceedings?

| 3. | Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did not commit the offence in question? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Still in the latter hypothesis, are different conclusions to be drawn from the fact that the court acquits the debtor by virtue of the application of the principle in dubio pro reo, or acquits him because it has been proved that the debtor did not commit the offence in question?

| 4. | What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action to recover the duty not collected? |
| --- | --- |

4.

What consequences follow if the Public Prosecutor's Office does not lay a charge against the debtor, holding that there is no evidence of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings? Will such a decision preclude any action to recover the duty not collected?

| 5. | If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself should close the case because the criminal proceedings are time-barred, will such a decision make it impossible to bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not collected? |
| --- | --- |

5.

If the Public Prosecutor's Office or the criminal court itself should close the case because the criminal proceedings are time-barred, will such a decision make it impossible to bring the corresponding action to recover the duty not collected?

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay such duties.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/14

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas by order of that court of 20 December 2005 in UAB ‘Profisa’ v Muitines Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Ministerijos

(Case C-63/06)

(2006/C 86/26)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Lietuvos Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) (Lithuania) of 20 December 2005, received at the Court Registry on 3 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between UAB 'Profisa' and Muitines Departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos Finansų Ministerijos (Customs Department of the Ministry of Finances of the Republic of Lithuania) on the following question:

Having regard to the differences in various language versions in the wording of Council Directive 92/83/EEC (1) of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, is Article 27(1)(f) of that directive to be understood as imposing an obligation on Member States to exempt from excise duty ethyl alcohol imported into the customs territory of the European Communities and contained in chocolate products intended for direct use, where the alcohol content does not exceed 8.5 litres for every 100 kilograms of the chocolate products?

---

(1)  OJ L 316, p. 21.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/15

---

Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-65/06)

(2006/C 86/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Ramón Vidal Puig and Wouter Wils, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not laying down sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 16(3) of that regulation;

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

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 provides: ‘The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. Article 19 provides that Regulation No 261/2004 was to enter into force on 17 February 2005. According to the information before the Commission, Belgium has not as yet laid down any sanctions for infringements of the Regulation which are effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/15

---

Action brought on 7 February 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic

(Case C-70/06)

(2006/C 86/28)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Xavier Lewis and António Caeiros)

Defendant(s): Portuguese Republic

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by having failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portuguese Republic [2004] ECR I-0000, concerning the transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by having failed to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portuguese Republic [2004] ECR I-0000, concerning the transposition into domestic law of Council Directive 89/665/EEC (1) of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the EC Treaty;

| — | order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, mentioned in Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, (2) a penalty payment of EUR 21 450 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-275/03 from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-275/03 is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay to the Commission, into the account ‘European Community own resources’, mentioned in Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, (2) a penalty payment of EUR 21 450 for every day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-275/03 from the day on which the Court of Justice delivers judgment in the present case until the day on which the judgment in Case C-275/03 is complied with;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the Commission, the draft law on the non-contractual civil liability of the State and other public bodies put before the Assembly of the Republic by the Portuguese Government does not provide the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 14 October 2004 in Case C-275/03 Commission v Portuguese Republic; no other measures whatsoever to comply with that judgment having been communicated to it, the Commission takes the view that the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) EC.

---

(1)  OJ L 395, p. 33.

(2)  Of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ L 130, p. 1).

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/16

---

Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-75/06)

(2006/C 86/29)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006, by the Portuguese Republic, represented by Carmel O'Reilly and Piedade Costa de Oliveira, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers or, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/9/EC; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers or, in any event, by having failed to communicate them to the Commission, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 2003/9/EC;

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

2.

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period allowed for transposition into domestic law of Directive 2003/9 expired on 6 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 31, p. 18.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/16

---

Action brought on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-79/06)

(2006/C 86/30)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 10 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Heller, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01, (1) regarding failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC (2) correctly and in full, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 27 November 2003 in Case C-429/01, (1) regarding failure to transpose Directive 90/219/EEC (2) correctly and in full, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 228(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

| 2. | order the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, for the ‘European Community's own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 168 000 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-429/01, from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-429/01 is complied with; |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the French Republic to pay to the Commission of the European Communities, for the ‘European Community's own resources’ account, a fine of EUR 168 000 per day of delay in complying with the judgment in Case C-429/01, from the date of judgment herein until the judgment in Case C-429/01 is complied with;

| 3. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The French Republic should have initiated, immediately after the Court's judgment, the necessary legislative process and adopted the appropriate amendments to comply with Directive 90/219/EEC.

Hitherto the amendments necessary at both the legislative and regulatory levels have still not been adopted, 14 years, and even ten and seven years respectively after the expiry of the period for compliance and more than two years after the Court's declaration of the failure to fulfil obligations.

---

(1)  [2003] ECR I-14355.

(2)  Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms ‘GMMO’ (OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1).

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/17

---

Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-81/06)

(2006/C 86/31)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Simonetti and D. Recchia, acting as Agents.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment or, in any event, by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 13(1) of that directive;

| 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 prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 21 July 2004.

---

(1)  Official Journal L 197 of 21/07/2001, p. 30.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/17

---

Action brought on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-82/06)

(2006/C 86/32)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Recchia and M. Konstantinidis, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to draw up or communicate:






  — | a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended, for the Province of Rimini, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to draw up or communicate:

—

a waste management plan in accordance with Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (1), as amended, for the Province of Rimini,

| — | a waste management plan including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste and hazardous waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, for the Region of Lazio, |
| --- | --- |

—

a waste management plan including suitable sites or installations for the disposal of waste and hazardous waste in accordance with the fourth indent of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended, for the Region of Lazio,

| — | a waste management plan in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2) for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini, |
| --- | --- |

—

a waste management plan in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC (2) for the Regions of Friuli Venezia-Giulia and Puglia, the Autonomous Province of Bolzano Alto-Adige and the Province of Rimini,

the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, as amended, and Article 6 of Directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste;

| 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 Member States are required, under Articles 6 and 7 of the Waste Directive, as amended, and the Dangerous Waste Directive, respectively, to draw up and communicate to the Commission waste management plans.

The current situation in Italy is that the drawing up and communication of waste management plans have yet to be completed. At the present time, the Commission has yet to receive notification of all of the plans required under the two above-mentioned directives.

---

(1)  OJ L 194, p. 39.

(2)  OJ L 377, p. 20.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/18

---

Action brought on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-83/06)

(2006/C 86/33)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 9 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC (1) of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC (2), which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/103/EC (1) of 7 October 2004 on identity and plant health checks of plants, plant products or other objects listed in Part B of Annex V to Council Directive 2000/29/EC (2), which may be carried out at a place other than the point of entry into the Community or at a place close by, or in any event by failing to notify the Commission of such measures, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1) of that directive;

| 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 prescribed period for implementing the directive expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  Official Journal L 313 of 12/10/2004, p. 16.

(2)  Official Journal L 169 of 10/07/2000, p. 1.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/18

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-89/06)

(2006/C 86/34)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of that directive;

| — | declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2003/30 expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 123 of 17.5.2003, p. 42.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

(Case C-90/06)

(2006/C 86/35)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by António Caeiros and Amparo Alcover, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, principally, that, in having failed to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions needed in order to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

| — | declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, in the alternative, that, in having omitted to inform the Commission immediately of any such provisions, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of Directive 2002/49/EC;

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

—

order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the Directive 2002/49 expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 189 of 18.7.2002, p. 12.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-93/06)

(2006/C 86/36)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by María Amparo Alcover San Pedro and Dr. Bernhard Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003 amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to introduce the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to implement Commission Directive 2003/73/EC of 24 July 2003 amending Annex III to Directive 1999/94/EC (1) and, in any event, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2(1) of that directive;

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the Directive expired on 25 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 186, 25.07.2003, p. 34.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/19

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-94/06)

(2006/C 86/37)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. Amparo Alcover San Pedro and B. Schima, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and management of environmental noise or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/49/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 on the assessment and management of environmental noise or, in any event, by failing to communicate those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 14(1) of that directive;

| 2. | order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing Directive 2002/49 into national law expired on 18 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 189, 18.7.2002, p. 12.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/20

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta Domstolen by order of that court of 8 February 2006 in Freeport PLC v Olle Arnoldsson

(Case C-98/06)

(2006/C 86/38)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Högsta Domstolen (Supreme Court), Sweden of 8 February 2006, received at the Court Registry on 20 February 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Freeport PLC, London, Great Britain and Olle Arnoldsson on the following questions:

| 1. | Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-stock company as a consequence of a commitment undertaken to be regarded as being based on contract for the application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation, even though the party which gave the commitment at the relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of the company? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is an action based on alleged liability in damages for a joint-stock company as a consequence of a commitment undertaken to be regarded as being based on contract for the application of Article 6(1) of the First Brussels Regulation, even though the party which gave the commitment at the relevant time was neither a representative nor an agent of the company?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition to the conditions expressly laid down therein, that the action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court was not brought solely in order to have an action against another defendant heard by a court other than that which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the case? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: is it a precondition for jurisdiction under Article 6(1), in addition to the conditions expressly laid down therein, that the action against a defendant domiciled in the same State as the court was not brought solely in order to have an action against another defendant heard by a court other than that which would otherwise have had jurisdiction to hear the case?

| 3. | If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should the likelihood of success of an action against the party domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken into account in the determination of whether there is such a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article 6(1)? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If the answer to the first question is in the negative: should the likelihood of success of an action against the party domiciled in the same State as the court otherwise be taken into account in the determination of whether there is such a risk of irreconcilable judgments for the purposes of Article 6(1)?

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/20

---

Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-100/06)

(2006/C 86/39)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, (1) and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2003/66/EC of 3 July 2003 amending Directive 94/2/EC implementing Council Directive 92/75/EEC with regard to energy labelling of household electric refrigerators, freezers and their combinations, (1) and, in any event, by not informing the Commission of them, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The time for complying with Directive 2003/66/EC expired on 30 June 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 170, p. 10.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/21

---

Action brought on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-101/06)

(2006/C 86/40)

Language of the case: French

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Stromsky, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, (1) the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | declare that, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

2.

declare that, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 April 2001 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to the implementation of good clinical practice in the conduct of clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 3. | order the French Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

order the French Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2001/20/EC expired on 30 April 2003.

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 121, p. 34.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/21

---

Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-105/06)

(2006/C 86/41)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J. Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementing Directive 2003/30/EC ended on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2003 L 123, p. 42.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/21

---

Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-106/06)

(2006/C 86/42)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by B. Schima and J Hottiaux, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to submit a national report on the promotion of biofuels, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport; (1) |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to submit a national report on the promotion of biofuels, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2003/30/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 May 2003 on the promotion of the use of biofuels or other renewable fuels for transport; (1)

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has yet to send to the Commission its first report on the promotion of biofuels, which was to be submitted before the 1 July 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 123, p. 42.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/22

---

Action brought on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-107/06)

(2006/C 86/43)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Richard Lyal and Dimitris Triantafillou, Legal Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/123/EC (1) of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2003/123/EC (1) of 22 December 2003 amending Directive 90/435/EEC on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States, or in any event by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that directive;

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

—

order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposing the directive into national law expired on 1 January 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 7 of 13.01.2004, p. 41.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/22

---

Action brought on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-110/06)

(2006/C 86/44)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2003/4/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing Directive 2003/4/EC expired on 14 February 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 41, p. 26

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/23

---

Action brought on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-113/06)

(2006/C 86/45)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 27 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by J. Hottiaux and F Simonetti, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/57/EC of 23 April 2004 on the identification of pyrotechnic articles and certain ammunition for the purposes of Council Directive 93/158/EEC on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/57/EC of 23 April 2004 on the identification of pyrotechnic articles and certain ammunition for the purposes of Council Directive 93/158/EEC on the harmonisation of the provisions relating to the placing on the market and supervision of explosives for civil uses, (1) the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposing Directive 2004/57/EC expired on 31 December 2004.

---

(1)  OJ 2004 L 127, p. 73.

---

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Alecansan v OHIM

(Case T-202/03) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the figurative Community trade mark COMP USA - Earlier national figurative mark COMP USA - Lack of similarity of the goods and services - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 86/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Alecansan, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M. Baylos Morales, P. Merino Baylos, J. Arribas García, A. Velázquez Ibáñez and A. Angulo Lafora, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: CompUSA Management Co. (Dallas, United States) (represented by: P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

Action

brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 March 2003 (Case R 711/2002-1) relating to the opposition proceedings between Alecansan, SL, and CompUSA Management Co.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

| 3. | Orders the intervener to pay its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the intervener to pay its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Albrecht and Others v Commission

(Case T-251/03) (1)

(Health policy - Veterinary medicinal products - Products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin - Commission decision ordering suspension of marketing authorisations - Competence)

(2006/C 86/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Albert Albrecht GmbH & Co. KG, (Aulendorf, Germany), AniMedica GmbH (Seden-Bösensell, Germany), Ceva Tiergensundheit GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany), Fatro SpA (Bologna, Italy), Laboratorios Syva, SA (León, Spain), Laboratorios Virbac, SA (Barcelona, Spain), Química Farmacéutica Bayer, SA (Barcelona), Univete Técnica Pecuaria Comercio Industria, Lda (Lisbon, Portugal), Vétoquinol Especialidades Veterinarias, SA (Madrid, Spain), Virbac SA (Carros, France), (represented by: D. Waelbroeck, U. Zinsmeister and N. Rampal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk and M. Shotter, Agents)

Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans, Agents)

Application for

annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1404 of 22 April 2003 ordering suspension of the marketing authorisations of veterinary medicinal products containing benzathine benzylpenicillin intended to be administered by intramuscular and/or subcutaneous means to food-producing animals;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and those incurred by the applicants;

| 3. | Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the French Republic to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 31 January 2006 — Merck Sharp & Dohme and Others v Commission

(Case T-273/03) (1)

(Medicinal products for human use - Marketing authorisation for products containing the substance enalapril - Commission decision ordering amendment of the summary of the product's characteristics - Competence)

(2006/C 86/48)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd (Hoddesdon, United Kingdom), Merck Sharp & Dohme BV (Haarlem, Netherlands), Laboratoires Merck Sharp & Dohme-Chibret (Paris, France), MSD Sharp & Dohme GmbH (Haar, Germany), Merck Sharp & Dohme (Italia) SpA (Rome, Italy), Merck Sharp & Dohme, Lda (Paço de Arcos, Portugal), Merck Sharp & Dohme de España, SA (Madrid, Spain), Merck Sharp & Dohme GmbH (Vienna, Austria), Vianex SA (Nea Erythrea, Greece), (represented by: G. Berrisch and P. Bogaert, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: L. Flynn and B. Stromsky, Agents)

Action for

annulment of Commission Decision C(2003) 1752 of 21 May 2003 on the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the substance enalapril

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1752 of 21 May 2003 on the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the substance enalapril; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision C(2003) 1752 of 21 May 2003 on the marketing of medicinal products for human use containing the substance enalapril;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/25

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Giulietti v Commission

(Case T-293/03) (1)

(Officials - Open competition - Exclusion from the competition - Illegality of the competition notice - Inadmissibility - Professional experience - Full-time activity)

(2006/C 86/49)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carla Giulietti (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P.Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents)

Application for

Annulment, firstly, of the decision of the selection board for competition COM/A/6/01 to exclude the applicant from that competition on the ground of lack of professional experience, communicated by letter of 16 October 2002; secondly, of the confirmatory decision of that selection board, following an application for reconsideration submitted by the applicant, communicated by letter of 21 November 2002, and, thirdly, of the express decision rejecting the complaint of 11 June 2003.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Rodrigues Carvalhais v OHIM

(Case T-206/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘PERFIX’ - Earlier Community figurative trade mark containing the verbal element ‘cerfix’ - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 86/50)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais (Almada, Portugal) (represented by: P. Graça initially, then J. Lopes, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: J. Novais Gonçalves, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Profilpas Snc (Cadoneghe, Italy) (represented by: J.L. Revenga Santos initially, then J.M. Monravá, lawyers)

Action

brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 March 2004 (Case R 408/2003-1), concerning opposition proceedings between M. Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais and Profilpas Snc

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 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 217 of 28.8.2004.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/26

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Elisabetta Dami v OHIM

(Joined Cases T-466/04 and T-467/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Word mark GERONIMO STILTON - Opposition - Stay of proceedings - Restriction of the list of goods designated by the mark for which registration is sought - Withdrawal of the opposition)

(2006/C 86/51)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elisabetta Dami (Milan, Italy) (represented by: P. Beduschi and S. Giudici, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Stilton Cheese Makers Association (Surbiton, Surrey, United Kingdom)

Action

Two actions against the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Mrs Elisabetta Dami and The Stilton Cheese Makers Association,

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2); |
| --- | --- |

1.

annuls the decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 20 September 2004 (Cases R 973/2002-2 and R 982/2002-2);

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

2.

orders OHIM to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.3.2005.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 14 February 2006 — TEA-CEGOS and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-376/05 and T-383/05) (1)

(Public contracts - Community procedure for call for tenders - Recruitment of short-term experts responsible for providing technical assistance for the benefit of third countries benefiting from external aid - Rejection of tenders)

(2006/C 86/52)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: TEA-CEGOS, SA (Madrid, Spain) and Services techniques globaux (STG) SA (Brussels, Belgium), in Case T-376/05 (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers), and GHK Consulting Ltd (London, United Kingdom), in Case T-383/05 (represented by: M. Dittmer and J.-E. Svensson, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Wilderspin and G. Boudot, Agents)

Application for

Annulment, first, of the Commission's decisions of 12 October 2005 rejecting the tenders submitted by the applicants in the context of the procedure for the call for tenders bearing the reference ‘EuropeAid/119860/C/SV/multi-Lot 7’ and, second, of any other decision taken by the Commission in the context of the same call for tenders following the decisions of 12 October 2005

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the actions. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory procedures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay the costs, including those relating to the interlocutory procedures.

---

(1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 October 2005 — Fintecna v Commission

(Case T-249/02) (1)

(European Social Fund - Reduction of financial assistance - Action for annulment - Measure against which actions may be brought - Preparatory measure - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 86/53)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fintecna — Finanziaria per i settori industriale e dei servizi SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Roberti, A. Franchi and R. de Lisa, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially L. Flynn and A. Aresu, subsequently E. de March and L. Flynn, Agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Application for

Annulment of the Commission's letter of 31 March 2000 in relation to various pieces of financial assistance from the European Social Fund (ESF), granted to a number of operational programmes under the Community scheme of support for the achievement of Objectives 1, 3 and 4 in Italy (centre-north and Mezzogiorno)

Operative part of the Order

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

1.

The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those of the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 233, 28.9.2002.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/27

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 January 2006 — Schneider Electric v Commission

(Case T-48/03) (1)

(Competition - Concentrations - Resumption of the control procedure following annulment by the Court of First Instance of a decision prohibiting a concentration - Initiation of the detailed examination phase - Abandonment of the concentration - Closure of the control procedure - Action for annulment - Acts adversely affecting the applicant - Interest in bringing an action - Inadmissible)

(2006/C 86/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Schneider Electric (Rueil-Malmaison) (represented by: initially A. Winckler, M. Pittie and É de La Serre, then M. Pittie and A. Winckler, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially p. Oliver and F. Lelièvre, then P. Oliver and O. Beynet, Agents)

Application for

annulment, first, of the Commission's decision of 4 December 2002 to open the detailed examination phase of the concentration between Schneider and Legrand (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) and, second, of the Commission's decision of 13 December 2002 to close the procedure for the control of that transaction

Operative part of the Order

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

1.

The applicant is dismissed as inadmissible.

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

2.

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

---

(1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council

(Case T-278/03) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of magnesium oxide originating in China - Amendment of anti-dumping measures instituted earlier - Action for annulment - Objection of inadmissibility)

(2006/C 86/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Van Mannekus & Co. BV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Bleier, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, assisted by G. Berrisch, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talaber Ricz, Agents)

Application for

annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 985/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1334/1999 on imports of magnesium oxide originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 1)

Operative part of the Order

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

1.

The application is dismissed;

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and those of the Council;

| 3. | The Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 264, 1.11.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/28

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 27 January 2006 — Van Mannekus v Council

(Case T-280/03) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in China - Amendment of anti-dumping measures previously imposed - Action for annulment - Objection as to admissibility)

(2006/C 86/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Van Mannekus & Co. BV (Schiedam, Netherlands) (represented by: H. Bleier, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Marquardt, Agent, and by G. Berrisch, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: T. Scharf and K. Talaber Ricz, Agents)

Application for

annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 986/2003 of 5 June 2003 amending the anti-dumping measures imposed by Regulation (EC) No 360/2000 on imports of dead-burned (sintered) magnesia originating in the People's Republic of China (OJ 2003 L 143, p. 5)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the Council.

| 3. | The Commission shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 January 2006 — Komninou and Others v Commission

(Case T-42/04) (1)

(Action for damages - Non-contractual liability - Decision to take no further action on a complaint putting in issue a Member State's conduct capable of giving rise to proceedings for failure to fulfil obligations - Treatment of the complaint by the Commission - Principle of sound administration)

(2006/C 86/57)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicants: Ermioni Komninou, Grigorios Ntokos, Donatos Pappas, Vassileios Pappas, Aristeidis Pappas, Eleftheria Pappa, Lamprini Pappa, Eirini Pappa, Alexandra Ntokou, Léonidas Grepis, Nikolaos Grepis, Fotios Dimitriou, Zoïs Dimitriou, Petros Bolossis, Despoina Bolossi, Konstantinos Bolossis and Thomas Bolossis (Parga, Greece) (represented by: P. Stroumpos, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Konstantinidis, Agent)

Application for

Compensation for the non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicants because of the Commission's conduct in the treatment of their complaint concerning alleged infringements by the Hellenic Republic of Community environment law.

Operative part of the Order

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

1.

The application is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicants shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 85 of 3.4.2004

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission

(Case T-396/05 R)

(Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Admissibility - Urgency - Absence)

(2006/C 86/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Architecture, microclimat, energies douces — Europe et Sud (ArchiMEDES) SARL (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Kańska and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Application for

Suspension of the operation, firstly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/29

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 10 January 2006 — ArchiMEDES v Commission

(Case T-397/05 R)

(Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Urgency - Absence)

(2006/C 86/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Architecture, microclimat, energies douces — Europe et Sud (ArchiMEDES) SARL (Ganges, France) (represented by: P.-P. Van Gehuchten, J. Sambon and P. Reyniers, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Kańska and E. Manhaeve, Agents)

Application for

Suspension of the operation, firstly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 5 October 2005 to offset debts to the detriment of the applicant; secondly, of the Commission's decision contained in its letter of 30 August 2005 and, thirdly, of the debit note of 23 August 2005, No 3240705638

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed;

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 1 February 2006 — Endesa v Commission

(Case T-417/05 R)

(Application for interim measures - Control of concentrations between undertakings - Urgency)

(2006/C 86/60)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Endesa, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J. Flynn QC, S. Baxter, Solicitor, M. Odriozola, M. Muñoz de Juan, M. Merola and J. García de Enterría Lorenzo-Velázquez, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre, É. Gippini Fournier, A. Whelan and M. Schneider, Agents)

Interveners supporting the defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, abogado del Estado) and Gas Natural SDG, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: F.E. González Díaz and J. Jímenez de la Iglesia, lawyers)

Application for

an order, firstly, for suspension of the operation of the Commission's letter of 15 November 2005 declaring that a concentration between Gas Natural SDG, SA, and Endesa, SA, does not have a Community dimension within the meaning of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ L 24, p. 1), and, secondly, for the adoption of other interim measures

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/30

---

Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2006 — Brink's Security Luxembourg v Commission

(Case T-437/05 R)

(Application for interim measures - Urgency - Absence)

(2006/C 86/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Brink's Security Luxembourg (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: C. Point and G. Dauphin, lawyers)

Defendan): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Manhaeve, M. Šimerdová and K. Mojzesowicz, Agents, and by J. Stuyck, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Group 4 Falck SA (Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Molitor, P. Lopes da Silva, N. Cambonie and N. Bogelmann, lawyers)

Application for

interim measures essentially asking, firstly, that the Commission enjoined from signing the contract relating to Call for tenders No 16/2005/OIL (buildings security and surveillance), secondly, should the Commission have already concluded that contract, that its performance be suspended until the Court has ruled on the substance of the action and, thirdly, that the adoption of other measures be ordered

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The application for interim measures is dismissed.

| 2. | Costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Costs are reserved.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/31

---

Action brought on 12 January 2006 — FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin v Commission

(Case T-8/06)

(2006/C 86/62)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: FAB Fernsehen aus Berlin GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Böken, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 (State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg). |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 (State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg).

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries, and thus also from the applicant, the aid which was unlawfully made available to them.

In support of its action the applicant submits that the subsidy granted does not amount to State aid under Article 87(1) EC. Furthermore, there is no aid, since the conditions laid down in Article 86(2) EC are not met. The applicant also submits that the measure in dispute does not affect trade between Member States and, consequently, the contested decision is unlawful in that respect.

In support of its action the applicant also submits that, if the subsidy were to be regarded as aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, it would be compatible with the common market pursuant to Article 87(3) EC. In that regard, the applicant alleges that the defendant exceeded the discretion which it has when deciding whether a subsidy may be regarded as compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d) EC.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/31

---

Action brought on 16 January 2006 — K-Swiss/OHIM

(Case T-14/06)

(2006/C 86/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss (Westlake Village, USA) [represented by: H. E. Hübner, lawyer]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 26 September 2005 (Case R 1109/2004-1);

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a shoe with five parallel stripes placed on the side for goods in class 25 (shoes for men, women and children) — application No 2 788 511

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the combination of the characteristic elements of the mark applied for is inherently capable of distinguishing the goods of the applicant from those of others. Breach of the principle of non-discrimination as the OHIM allowed the registration of among others a figurative mark representing a shoe with two parallel stripes placed on the front of the shoe.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Action brought on 23 January 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM

(Case T-18/06)

(2006/C 86/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Telekom AG (Bonn, Germany) (represented by J.-C. Gaedertz, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 17 November 2005;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Alles, was uns verbindet’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 — Application No 3 648 441

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the mark applied for is distinctive in respect of the designated goods and services and is not of a descriptive nature, because the combination of words is unusual and uncommon in relation to the goods and services claimed.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Action brought on 21 January 2006 — Germany v Commission

(Case T-21/06)

(2006/C 86/65)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: M. Lumma, C. Schulze-Bahr, Agents, assisted by G. Quardt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them.

In support of its action the applicant submits, in particular, that the aid granted is compatible with the common market and complains that the Commission made numerous errors of judgment and assessment in its application of Article 87(3)(c) EC. Instead of carrying out an assessment under Article 87(3)(c) EC, the defendant used a new method of assessment of market failure which, in the way it was carried out, was not suitable to determine the compatibility or incompatibility of the aid with the common market. Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission did not carry out an adequate assessment under Article 87(3)(b) EC of the compatibility of the aid granted.

In addition, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed general principles of law. It complains that the principle of sound administration and the principle of the right to be heard were infringed.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/32

---

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg v Commission

(Case T-24/06)

(2006/C 86/66)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Medienanstalt Berlin-Brandenburg (MABB) (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte, B. Immenkamp, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Commission of the European Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 on the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C(2005) 3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the introduction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in DVB-T was incompatible with the common market and ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to them. The applicant is expressly referred to as an issuer of aid in the contested decision.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward three pleas in law.

First, it states that the contested decision errs in law as essential formal requirements have been infringed. The Commission has, in particular, infringed the obligation to state reasons as it has not explained comprehensively why this should be regarded as a case involving State aid.

Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 87 EC. On the one hand, it contends that there is no aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC. On the other hand, it claims that if there has in fact been aid, that would be compatible with the common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d).

Finally, the applicant bases its action on the fact that the contested decision infringes Article 86(2) EC since, in so far as there has been aid, that would be compatible with the common market.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/33

---

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann v OHIM

(Case T-28/06)

(2006/C 86/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann GmbH & Co. KG (Duisburg, Germany) (represented by W. Kellenter and A. Lambrecht, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2005 in Appeal No R 1179/2004-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2005 in Appeal No R 1179/2004-2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘VOM URSPRUNG HER VOLLKOMMEN’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 — Application No 2 806 875

Decision of the Examiner: registration rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal rejected

Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94, since the trade mark does not consist of exclusively descriptive elements and is also not devoid of any distinctive character.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/33

---

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

(Case T-29/06)

(2006/C 86/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1071/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 5 December 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1071/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 5 December 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a blue five petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 697 432

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/34

---

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

(Case T-30/06)

(2006/C 86/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 21 November 2005 (Case R 1072/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 5 December 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 21 November 2005 (Case R 1072/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 5 December 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a blue four petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 683 408

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/34

---

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM

(Case T-31/06)

(2006/C 86/70)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 16 November 2005 (Case R 1183/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 23 November 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 16 November 2005 (Case R 1183/2004-1), which was notified to P&G by letter of 23 November 2005, in so far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and

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

—

order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark in form of a square white tablet showing a lilac five petalled floral design for goods in class 3 (washing and bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparations; preparations for the washing, cleaning and care of dishes; soaps) — application No 1 683 457

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/35

---

Action brought on 30 January 2006 — Honig Verband v Commission

(Case T-35/06)

(2006/C 86/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Honig Verband e. V. (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Hagenmeyer and T. Teufer, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 (1), under which the designation of origin ‘Miel de Provence’ is registered as a protected geographical indication (PGI) in the annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 (2). Prior to the enactment of Regulation No 1854/2005 the applicant challenged the application for registration of the designation ‘Miel de Provence’ before the competent German authority.

In support of its action the applicant submits three pleas in law.

It submits, first, that the contested regulation should be annulled since it is contrary to the special and conclusive rules on the designation of origin for honey contained in Directive 2001/110/EC (3). Furthermore, the defendant's regulation constitutes a disproportionate restriction on the free movement of goods in terms of Article 28 EC.

Second, in support of its action the applicant submits that the contested regulation is incompatible with the requirements of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (4). In that regard, it claims that Article 2, Article 4 and the second indent of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 2081/92 have been infringed.

Finally, the applicant alleges that Regulation No 1854/2005 was enacted pursuant to a legally incorrect procedure. The defendant did not deal adequately with the argument concerning the economic effect on an existing designation.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1854/2005 of 14 November 2005 supplementing the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 as regards the entry of a name in the ‘Register of protected designations of origin and protected geographical indications’ (Miel de Provence) (PGI).

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2400/96 of 17 December 1996 on the entry of certain names in the ‘Register of protected designation of origin and protected geographical indications’ provided for in Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

(3)  Council Directive 2001/110/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to honey.

(4)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/35

---

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Transcatab v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-39/06)

(2006/C 86/72)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Transcatab S.p.A. in Liquidation (Caserta, Italy) (represented by: Cristoforo Osti and Alessandra Prastaro, avvocati)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | Annul in part Article 1.1 of Commission Decision C (2005) 4012 def. of 20 October 2005, in which it found that SCC (and therefore Alliance One) should be held to be jointly liable for the infringements of Article 81 committed by Transcatab; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul in part Article 1.1 of Commission Decision C (2005) 4012 def. of 20 October 2005, in which it found that SCC (and therefore Alliance One) should be held to be jointly liable for the infringements of Article 81 committed by Transcatab;

| — | Consequently reduce the fine imposed on the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

Consequently reduce the fine imposed on the applicant;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the costs in full, including those of Transcatab. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the costs in full, including those of Transcatab.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision which is the subject of the present action is the same as that in Case T-11/06 Tabacchi v Commission. As regards the applicant, the decision holds the company Alliance One International jointly liable in its capacity as the ultimate holding company TRANSCATAB.

In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the Commission:

| — | erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of 10 % of turnover. |
| --- | --- |

—

erred in law in holding Alliance One International liable for the conduct of TRANSCATAB. In particular, the defendant infringed the principles regarding the burden of proof, failed to demonstrate the influence exercised by Alliance One International and, consequently, exceeded the limit of 10 % of turnover.

| — | Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market, the downstream market and consumers, as well as the limited size of the relevant geographical market. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in finding the infringement in question to be very serious and not, at most, serious, by reason of the virtually non-existent effect of the agreement on the relevant market, the downstream market and consumers, as well as the limited size of the relevant geographical market.

| — | Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringed the principles of proportionality and equality in fixing the basic amount of the fine at EUR 10 million.

| — | Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to 1998 from that of the following period and considered TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999 to 2002, the Commission infringed the principle of equality, in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal context was confused but did not apply the same finding to the processors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failed to distinguish the conduct in the period 1995 to 1998 from that of the following period and considered TRANSCATAB alone to be liable for the former. Indeed, by holding the applicant liable also for the conduct from 1999 to 2002, the Commission infringed the principle of equality, in so far as it acknowledged as an attenuating circumstance for the associations the fact that the legal context was confused but did not apply the same finding to the processors.

| — | infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capacity as members of the Associazione professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringed the principle of non bis in idem in that it penalised TRANSCATAB and the other processors once in their capacity as members of the Associazione professionale Trasformatori Tabacchi Italiani, and again as individual processors.

| — | Erred in failing to apply any of the attenuating circumstances cited by the applicant, such as its cooperation, the failure to perform the agreements, the interruption of those agreements or the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the nature of the infringing conduct. |
| --- | --- |

—

Erred in failing to apply any of the attenuating circumstances cited by the applicant, such as its cooperation, the failure to perform the agreements, the interruption of those agreements or the existence of a reasonable doubt as to the nature of the infringing conduct.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/36

---

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Bruno Gollnisch v European Parliament

(Case T-42/06)

(2006/C 86/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Bruno Gollnisch (Limonest, France) (represented by: W. de Saint Just, lawyer)

Defendant(s): European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 13 December 2005 to adopt Report No A6-0376/2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 13 December 2005 to adopt Report No A6-0376/2005,

| — | award Mr Gollnisch the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage, |
| --- | --- |

—

award Mr Gollnisch the sum of EUR 8 000 in compensation for non-material damage,

| — | further, award the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action. |
| --- | --- |

—

further, award the applicant the sum of EUR 4 000 by way of costs incurred for legal advice and the preparation of this action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant, a Member of the European Parliament, seeks the annulment of the decision made by the Parliament in plenary sitting on 13 December 2005 to adopt the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs No A6-0376/2005 concerning remarks the applicant made at a press conference and consequently not to defend his immunity and privileges. He also seeks compensation for the damage allegedly suffered as a result of the contested decision.

In support of his application, the applicant relies on several pleas in law alleging inter alia the unlawfulness of the form of the decision of Parliament whose annulment is sought, its inconsistency with general principles of law such as legal certainty and protection of legitimate expectations and procedural irregularities at the time of its adoption. He also submits that the contested decision is contrary to the precedents set by previous decisions of the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament as regards freedom of expression and fumus persecutionis and that it undermines the independence of an elected representative in that, according to the applicant, it is disputed that he spoke in the exercise of his national and European political activities at the press conference in question.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/37

---

Action brought on 19 February 2006 — Cofira SAC v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-43/06)

(2006/C 86/74)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofira SAC (Rousset Cedex, France) (represented by: Girolamo Addessi, Leonilda Mari, Daniella Magurno, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | annul the fine imposed on Cofira SAC; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the fine imposed on Cofira SAC;

| — | impose the fines jointly and severally on all the companies that came into existence upon the demerger of Cofira Sepso; |
| --- | --- |

—

impose the fines jointly and severally on all the companies that came into existence upon the demerger of Cofira Sepso;

| — | reduce the amount of the fine; |
| --- | --- |

—

reduce the amount of the fine;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 1 of the contested decision states that certain undertakings, including the applicant, infringed Community competition rules during the period from 24 March 1982 to 26 June 2002 by participating in agreements and concerted practices in the industrial plastic bag sector in Belgium, Germany, Spain, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. According to the defendant, the purpose of those infringements was to fix prices, implement common models, calculate prices, share markets, allocate sales quotas, customers, business and orders, collude in undermining certain invitations to tender and exchange individual information.

In support of its claims, the applicant maintains first and foremost that the decision should not have been addressed to it.

In this regard, it is pointed out that on 27 November 2003 COFIRA SEPSO, which, along with other concerns, was investigated, was split into three companies, one of them being the applicant. COFIRA SAC therefore came into existence after the occurrence of the events which gave rise to the imposition of penalties by the Commission.

The contested decision does not even state the grounds on which the fine was imposed on the applicant alone, when all of the companies which came into existence as a result of the demerger of COFIRA SEPSO should have been required to answer for the wrongful acts alleged.

Nor does the decision state the basis on which the total amount of the fine was calculated, bearing in mind the fact that fines are commensurate to turnover and that at the time of the alleged events the applicant did not have any turnover as it did not exist.

Furthermore, the Commission does not set out the elements of fact which constituted the infringement. In fact, the whole decision is based on the assumption that the meetings between the representatives of the companies amounted, subsequently and in fact, to conduct contrary to Article 81 EC, and that such practices had a significant impact on competition. However, even if the facts relied on by the Commission were accepted, the fifteen year limitation period has expired.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/37

---

Action brought on 14 February 2006 — Commission v Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic Ventures S.A. — and five other defendants

(Case T-44/06)

(2006/C 86/75)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Patakia and by S. Khatzigiannis, lawyer)

Defendant: Elliniki Etairia Epikhirimatikis Protovoulias — Hellenic Ventures S.A., Konstantinos Katsigiannis, Panagiotis Chronopoulos, Minas Patsouris, Nikolaos Poulakos and Robert Ceurvorst

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | order the defendant company, jointly with the second to the sixth defendants, to repay to the Commission the entire amount of the advance received by the first defendant from the Community, that is, ECU (now EURO) 70 000, together with interest, calculated as laid down in the contract, amounting, until 12 February 2006, to a sum of ECU (now EURO) 103 423,54, that is, a total of ECU (now EURO) 171 939,18, as well as interest, again in accordance with the terms of the contract, of 1.5 % per month, that is, an amount of ECU (now EURO) 34.52 per day for the period from 1 January 2006 until full discharge of the sum due by the defendants; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant company, jointly with the second to the sixth defendants, to repay to the Commission the entire amount of the advance received by the first defendant from the Community, that is, ECU (now EURO) 70 000, together with interest, calculated as laid down in the contract, amounting, until 12 February 2006, to a sum of ECU (now EURO) 103 423,54, that is, a total of ECU (now EURO) 171 939,18, as well as interest, again in accordance with the terms of the contract, of 1.5 % per month, that is, an amount of ECU (now EURO) 34.52 per day for the period from 1 January 2006 until full discharge of the sum due by the defendants;

| — | order the defendants jointly to pay the Commission's costs, including the fees of the Commission's lawyers. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants jointly to pay the Commission's costs, including the fees of the Commission's lawyers.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the first defendant company, in which the other defendants are shareholders and members of its Board or directors, a contract entitled ‘Seed Fund 601’, in the context of the Pilot action to create and develop seed-capital funds. (1)

Under that contract the Commission undertook to provide to the first defendant financial support in the form of a repayable advance of a maximum amount of ECU 350 000. That advance was intended to cover a maximum limit of 50 % of the operating costs which the first defendant would incur in the context of its activities as the Fund for start-up business capital in Greece. In that context, the Commission paid to the first defendant the first annual advance of ECU 70 000.

By letter of 16 June 1994, the Commission informed the defendant that it was rescinding the contract and asked it to repay, with interest, the amount of ECU 70 000. By letter of 19 September 1994 the Commission explained that that decision was taken as a result of the defendant's refusal to submit to a detailed inspection by the auditors of the Commission's financial control service, in breach of Article 8(1) of the contract. The Commission had decided that such an audit was indispensable in view of the findings of a Commission official who had carried out an on-the-spot inspection and had expressed serious doubts as to whether the investments which the first defendant company was supposed to have funded corresponded to the tender specifications.

Although the first defendant was repeatedly called upon to repay the amount demanded, it failed to do so.

By its action the Commission seeks payment of the above amount owed to it together with the interest due.

---

(1)  OJ C 306 of 1.12.1988, p. 12.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/38

---

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Reliance Industries v Council and Commission

(Case T-45/06)

(2006/C 86/76)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reliance Industries Ltd (Bombay, India) [represented by: I. MacVay, S. Ahmed, Solicitors]

Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Commission's decisions, dated 1 December 2005, giving notice of an expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain bottle grade polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in, inter alia, India, and of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (1); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Commission's decisions, dated 1 December 2005, giving notice of an expiry review of the countervailing measures applicable to imports of certain bottle grade polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’) originating in, inter alia, India, and of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in India, Indonesia, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, Taiwan and Thailand and a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain PET originating in the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (1);

| — | if the Court considers it to be necessary or appropriate, annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2603/2000, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 and Commission Decision No. 2000/745/EC, in so far as they may purport to extend to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005; and |
| --- | --- |

—

if the Court considers it to be necessary or appropriate, annul Council Regulation (EC) No. 2603/2000, Council Regulation (EC) No. 2604/2000 and Commission Decision No. 2000/745/EC, in so far as they may purport to extend to the applicant in the period after 1 December 2005; and

| — | if, but only if, and only to the extent that the Court may find, contrary to the applicant's case, that they differ in their true construction from the terms of Article 11.3 of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) Dumping Agreement and/or Article 21.3 of the WTO Anti-Subsidies Agreement, annul Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’) and Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2026/97 (‘the basic anti-subsidy regulation’); |
| --- | --- |

—

if, but only if, and only to the extent that the Court may find, contrary to the applicant's case, that they differ in their true construction from the terms of Article 11.3 of the World Trade Organisation (‘WTO’) Dumping Agreement and/or Article 21.3 of the WTO Anti-Subsidies Agreement, annul Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 (‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’) and Article 18(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 2026/97 (‘the basic anti-subsidy regulation’);

| — | order that the defendants meet the applicant's costs of these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the defendants meet the applicant's costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the two contested decisions the Commission decided to initiate an expiry review with regard to Council Regulation No. 2603/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India, Malaysia and Thailand and terminating the anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of certain PET originating in Indonesia, the Republic of Korea and Taiwan (2) and Council Regulation (EC) No 2604/2000 of 27 November 2000 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain PET originating in India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and Thailand (3), as well as Commission Decision No. 2000/745/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the above anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings (4). By virtue of Articles 11(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation and 18(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation, the effect of these notices of initiation, if given in time, would be that the relevant measures remain in force pending the outcome of the review.

In support of its application the applicant submits that there has been no valid initiation of an expiry review so that the measures and undertaking at issue expired, in accordance with their terms, on 1 December 2005. The applicant argues that the notices were published on the same day as that on which the measures expired (1 December) and that, therefore, an expiry review was not initiated before the date of expiry, as required by WTO rules. In this respect, the applicant considers that the basic regulations must be interpreted in accordance with WTO agreements and that, in any case, any ambiguity in the basic regulations must be resolved in its favour, in accordance with general principles of Community law. The applicant further contends that if the basic regulations could not be interpreted in the manner it suggests, then those provisions would themselves be contrary to WTO rules and therefore invalid to this extent.

---

(1)  OJ C 304, 1.12.2005 p. 4 and p. 9

(2)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 1

(3)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 21

(4)  OJ L 301, 30.11.2000 p. 88

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/39

---

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Galileo Lebensmittel v Commission

(Case T-46/06)

(2006/C 86/77)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Galileo Lebensmittel GmbH & Co. KG (Trierweiler, Germany) (represented by: K. Bott, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain galileo.eu and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing eu. Top Level Domains (EURid) to register freely the domain Galileo.eu. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision to reserve the domain galileo.eu and order the defendant to allow the registry issuing eu. Top Level Domains (EURid) to register freely the domain Galileo.eu.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant applied for registration of the domain ‘galileo.eu’ as an eu. Top Level Domain. The Registry, EURid, refused that registration on the ground that the domain applied for is reserved for the defendant.

In support of its application the applicant alleges infringement of Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (1). In addition, it claims that its rights under the second paragraph of Article 2, the first subparagraph of Article 10(1) and the third subparagraph of Article 12(2) of Regulation No 874/2004 have been infringed.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying down public policy rules concerning the implementation and functions of the .eu Top Level Domain and the principles governing registration.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Astex Therapeutics v OHIM

(Case T-48/06)

(2006/C 86/78)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Astex Therareutics Limited (Cambridge, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister, and R. Harrison, Solicitor]

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Protec Health International Limited (Cirencester, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 29 November 2005, in case R 651/2004 — 2 in its entirety or, alternatively, in part;

| — | order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the opponent pays to the applicant/appellant the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal (if the opponent intervenes in this appeal) and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division (in any event). Further, order that the Office is jointly and severally liable with the opponent for the applicant's/appellant's costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Astex Technology’ for goods in class 5 (pharmaceuticals)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Protec Health International Limited.

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Astex’ for goods and services in classes 5 (insecticides for killing dust mites) and 24 (textiles etc.)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Refuses registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismisses the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 40/94.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/40

---

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Ireland v Commission

(Case T-50/06)

(2006/C 86/79)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan, agent, P. McGarry, Barrister]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, Commission Decision C[2005] 4436 Final of 7 December insofar as it relates to the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul, in whole or in part, pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, Commission Decision C[2005] 4436 Final of 7 December insofar as it relates to the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region implemented by Ireland;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1970 a commitment was given to the promoters of Aughinish in respect of exemptions from customs duties on fuel oil to be used in the production of alumina in the then proposed plant at Shannon, Ireland. In 1983, the plant at Aughinish went into operation and the Irish authorities notified the Commission that it intended to implement the commitments in respect of the exemption from excise duty. The applicant states that the exemption was furthermore authorized by virtue of subsequent Council Decisions (1). In 2000, the Commission raised the issue of State aid, which led to the institution of the formal investigation and, finally, the adoption of the contested decision.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission is wrong in law in concluding that the aid concerned constitutes new aid, as opposed to existing aid.

According to the applicant, even if the aid constituted new aid and was required to be notified upon its implementation in 1983, the Commission accepts that the aid was notified at that time. The failure of the Commission to take any decision within the time periods devised by itself rendered the aid concerned existing aid. In the alternative, the Commission treated the aid as existing aid at all material times, and the unequivocal statement made by it in 1992 confirms this to be the case.

Furthermore, by virtue of Article 15 read in conjunction with Article 1(b)(iv) of Regulation 659/1999 (2) since aid has been in existence in excess of ten years and the limitation period specified therein has expired, the aid has become existing aid and the procedures adopted by the Commission in relation to the supervision thereof are flawed.

In relation to its first plea, the applicant also claims that the aid was the subject of legally binding commitments entered into on the part of the Irish authorities prior to accession in 1973. According to the applicant the aid should have been found to constitute existing aid on this heading alone.

The applicant pleads by way of additional plea that the decision is in breach of the principle of legal certainty in circumstances where it conflicts with the unanimous decision of the Council taken on foot of a proposal submitted by the Commission. The decision is also in direct conflict with the provision of Article 8(5) of Directive 92/81/EEC (3) on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on mineral oils, which required the Commission to submit a proposal in respect of distortions of competition or incompatibility with the internal market for the unanimous approval of the Council.

Furthermore, the Commission has allegedly infringed, at least insofar as the beneficiary of the aid measure is concerned, the principle of legitimate expectation in circumstances where the Council has expressly authorised the derogation until 31 December 2006.

Finally, it is submitted that the Commission has breached a fundamental rule of law and has misused its powers by virtue of its conduct, including its delay in taking the contested decision, having regard in particular to the fact that it was first notified of the aid in question in 1983. In addition, the Commission disregarded the procedures contained in Directive 92/81/EEC, and made public statements regarding the compatibility of the aid scheme in issue. By virtue of its conduct therefore, the Commission is estopped from ordering the recovery of the aid in all the circumstances.

---

(1)  92/510/EEC: Council Decision of 19 October 1992 authorizing Member States to continue to apply to certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes, existing reduced rates of excise duty or exemptions from excise duty, in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 8 (4) of Directive 92/81/EEC (OJ L 316, p. 16) and other subsequent decisions.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ L 83, p. 1)

(3)  Council Directive 92/81/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonization of the structures of excise duties on mineral oils (OJ L 316, p. 12)

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/41

---

Action brought on 21 February 2006 — UPM-Kymmene v Commission

(Case T-53/06)

(2006/C 86/80)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UPM-Kymmene Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) [represented by: B. Amory, E. Friedel, F. Bimont, lawyers]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Partial annulment of the Decision insofar as it concluded that Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage participated in the Valveplast meetings at the European level from 18 July 1994 until 31 January 1999 and that a single and continuous infringement was formed on the basis of Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage's brief participation in the Valveplast meetings (from 21 November 1997 until 26 November 1998) and its cooperation in the French meetings on open mouth bags; |
| --- | --- |

—

Partial annulment of the Decision insofar as it concluded that Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage participated in the Valveplast meetings at the European level from 18 July 1994 until 31 January 1999 and that a single and continuous infringement was formed on the basis of Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage's brief participation in the Valveplast meetings (from 21 November 1997 until 26 November 1998) and its cooperation in the French meetings on open mouth bags;

| — | an order for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant under the Decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

an order for a reduction in the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant under the Decision;

| — | an order that the Commission reimburse the applicant for the unduly paid portion of the fine, with interests starting from the date of payment of the fine until full and final reimbursement by the Commission; and |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission reimburse the applicant for the unduly paid portion of the fine, with interests starting from the date of payment of the fine until full and final reimbursement by the Commission; and

| — | an order that the Commission pay for the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

an order that the Commission pay for the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of the Commission Decision C(2005) 4634 final of 30 November 2005 in Case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags. The applicant does not contest the substantive truth of the facts established, but submits that the Decision contains various errors of assessment of the facts concerning the applicant's subsidiary Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage and its role in the cartel activities, and seeks a reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the ground that it is unjustified and disproportionate.

In support of its application, the applicant alleges errors of fact in the application of Article 81(1) CE. The applicant submits that the Decision is vitiated due to the absence of evidence of a single and continuous infringement committed by Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage. Second, the applicant submits that the Commission wrongly assessed the duration of the infringement. According to the applicant, the Commission failed to establish that Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage took part in cartel activities in the block bags sector and participated in the Valveplast meetings at the European level as of 20 December 2004. In addition, the applicants states that there is insufficient proof of Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage's involvement in the meetings of the French group on open mouth bags until 31 January 1999.

The applicant furthermore submits an infringement of the general principles of proportionality, equal treatment and fairness, and errors in assessment in setting the fine.

First, the applicant claims that the Commission exceeded the limits of its discretion under Article 23(3) of Regulation 1/2003 by setting a starting amount for its fine that is disproportionate to the gravity of the infringement committed. In this regard, the applicant challenges the application of a deterrent factor of 2 and contends that the market share held in 1996 in the industrial bags market covered by the overall cartel was not the appropriate basis for calculating the basic amount of the fine.

Second, the applicant submits that the Commission erroneously assessed the duration of Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage participation in the cartel activities.

Third, the applicant contends that the Commission failed to give proper consideration to the fact that the applicant was held liable only in its capacity as parent company and, in so doing, breached the principle of fairness.

Fourth, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to consider certain mitigating circumstances and wrongly attributed the aggravating circumstances of recidivism.

Finally, in relation to the setting of the final amount of the fine, the applicant objects to the Commission's characterisation of the cartel as a very serious infringement of the competition rules, given the cartel's limited effect on competition and geographical scope.

The applicant also submits a breach of the rights of defence in that, during the administrative phase, it was not granted access to certain relevant pieces of evidence that were relied upon by the Commission to establish the duration and the scope of the infringement committed by Rosenlew Saint Frères Emballage

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/42

---

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Low & Bonar and Bonar Technical Fabrics v Commission

(Case T-59/06)

(2006/C 86/81)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Low & Bonar plc (Dundee, United Kingdom) and Bonar Technical Fabrics NV (Zele, Belgium) [represented by: L. Garzaniti, lawyer, M. O'Regan, Solicitor]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the Contested Decision of the Commission, no. C(2005)4634, of 30 November 2005, in case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags in its entirety, insofar as it relates to the applicants; or |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the Contested Decision of the Commission, no. C(2005)4634, of 30 November 2005, in case COMP/F/38.354 — Industrial bags in its entirety, insofar as it relates to the applicants; or

| — | in the alternative, annul in part Article 1(1) insofar as it relates to the applicants and annul in part, or alternatively, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed by Article 2 on the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul in part Article 1(1) insofar as it relates to the applicants and annul in part, or alternatively, reduce as appropriate the fine imposed by Article 2 on the applicants; and

| — | in the further alternative, reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 upon the applicants; and |
| --- | --- |

—

in the further alternative, reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 upon the applicants; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including default interest incurred by the applicants or either of them associated with the payment in whole or part of the fine; and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including default interest incurred by the applicants or either of them associated with the payment in whole or part of the fine; and

| — | take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate. |
| --- | --- |

—

take any other measures that the Court considers to be appropriate.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the Contested Decision the Commission found that Bonar Phormium Packaging (‘BPP’) had participated in a complex cartel between manufacturers of plastic industrial bags, affecting Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Spain. It also found that this cartel had been organised at the European level around a trade association known as Valveplast, along with various sub-groups. It found the first applicant liable for BPP's participation on the grounds that it was the parent company of Bonar Phormium NV (‘BP’), of which BPP was a division, and the second applicant liable on the grounds that it was the legal successor to BP, with which it had effected a legal merger. The Commission imposed a fine of 12.24 million EUR on the applicants.

The first applicant contends that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in finding it liable for the infringement committed by BPP. It alleges that, contrary to the findings of the Contested Decision, it did not participate in the commercial policy of BPP, whose management determined autonomously its conduct on the market.

Both applicants further and alternatively contend that the Commission committed errors of law and assessment in finding that the complex arrangement identified in the Contested Decision amounted to a single and continuous infringement of Article 81 EC committed, at the European level, around Valveplast, alternatively in finding that BPP had participated in or was otherwise aware of and thereby responsible for such an infringement. According to the applicants, the Commission was only entitled to find that BPP had participated in, or alternatively was aware of and responsible for, arrangements covering Belgium and the Netherlands and, of having participated in the Valveplast cartel for one week only, i.e. between 21 November 1997, when a representative of BPP attended a Valveplast meeting, and 28 November 1997 when, according to the Contested Decision, BPP's participation came to an end.

The applicants further and alternatively submit that the fine imposed by the Commission was excessive and disproportionate and infringed the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination and that the Commission committed other errors of law and assessment in determining the level of the fine and furthermore failed to provide reasons to justify its calculation of the fine. In this context the applicants allege that the Commission failed to appreciate that BPP had played an exclusively passive and limited role and that, further, the Commission imposed a disproportionately and excessively high basic amount.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/43

---

Action brought on 13 February 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-61/06)

(2006/C 86/82)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | Annul Memorandum No 12980 of 1.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 12980 of 1.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 13683 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 13683 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 13684 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999IT 16 1 PO 009); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 13684 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999IT 16 1 PO 009);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 13687 of 13.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Piedmont (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 007);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14013 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Tuscany Ob.2 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 001);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14015 of 19.12.2005 concerning NOP Local Enterprise Development 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1DO 002) — Payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested;

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14016 of 19.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 007);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14082 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Ob.2 Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 009);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14108 of 20.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Programme Lombardy (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2DO 014);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14133 of 21.12.2005 concerning the certification and declaration of interim costs and request for payment. SPD Veneto ob.2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 14154 of 21.12.2005 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

| — | Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Memorandum No 00627 of 23.01.2006 concerning payments by the European Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref PEP Programme Puglia (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1PO 009);

| — | Annul all connected and necessary measures; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul all connected and necessary measures;

| — | Order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission
   (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/44

---

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Eurallumina v Commission

(Case T-62/06)

(2006/C 86/83)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) [represented by: L. Martin Alegi, R. Denton, M. Garcia, Solicitors]

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Either:






  — | Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Either:

—

Annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

| — | order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

| — | annul the entirety of the contested decision and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the entirety of the contested decision and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered;

| — | Either:






  — | Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or |
| --- | --- | --- |

—

Either:

—

Annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

| — | order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; or

| — | annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina and order that the present exemption authorised by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006 and that any sums foregone or to be foregone by the Italian State should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not be recovered;

| — | In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December 2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums foregone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recovered; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, modify Articles 5 and 6 of the contested decision insofar as they pertain to Euralluminia to the effect that pursuant to the present exemption until 31 December 2006, or at least until 31 December 2003, any sums foregone and to be foregone by the Italian State not be recovered; and

| — | order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the Commission pay all of the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission of 7 December 2005 addressed to the French Republic, Ireland and the Italian Republic relating to a series of Council Decisions authorising exemptions from excise duty on mineral oils used for alumina production in Gardanne, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia. In the contested decision, the Commission found that the exemptions constituted State aid.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that it had the right to expect that the present exemption, proposed by the Commission and unanimously approved by Council Decision 2001/224/EEC (1) until the end of December 2006 is a legally valid Community act and that any act taken by the Italian State and the applicant to implement and rely on these measures would not lead to an unlawful result. According to the applicant, it had the right to expect that the monies foregone by the Italian State in accordance with the exemptions legally granted would not be recovered in any event. The Commission, by claiming that the application of the exemptions was a State aid recoverable from 3 February 2002 until 31 December 2003, has therefore allegedly violated the applicant's rights in respect of the principle of legitimate expectations, the principles of legal certainty, presumption of validity, ‘lex specialis’ and ‘effet utile’, as well as the principle of good administration.

Furthermore it is submitted that in deciding that the applicant's legitimate expectation came to an end on 2 February 2002, the Commission failed to take the appropriate period over which any investments were to be made and amortised relating to the applicant's plant into account. The Commission has, therefore, allegedly failed to state the reasons underlying the contested decision.

---

(1)  2001/224/EC: Council Decision of 12 March 2001 concerning reduced rates of excise duty and exemptions from such duty on certain mineral oils when used for specific purposes (OJ L 84, p. 23)

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/45

---

Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Eyropaïki Dynamiki v EMCDDA

(Case T-63/06)

(2006/C 86/84)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Eyropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) [represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer]

Defendant: The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor,

| — | order the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application as well as damages stemming from the tendering procedure. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application as well as damages stemming from the tendering procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submitted a bid in response to an open call for tender by the defendant for software programming and consultancy services (JO 2005/S 187-183846). The applicant contests the decision to reject its bid and to award the contract to another bidder.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the contested decision was taken in violation of the principle of non-discrimination and transparency, as well as in violation of Directive 92/50 (1) and the Financial Regulation (2). According to the applicant, its bid was rejected on criteria that were not included in the contract notice. The applicant also claims that the defendant failed to request clarifications from the applicant and therefore infringed the principle of good administration. Finally, the applicant submits that the contested decision contains evident errors of assessment.

---

(1)  Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (OJ L 209, p. 1)

(2)  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 L 248, p. 1)

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/46

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 February 2006 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM

(Case T -330/05) (1)

(2006/C 86/85)

Language of the case: German

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

---

(1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.

---

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/47

---

Action brought on 16 December 2005 — A v Commission

(Case F-124/05)

(2006/C 86/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: A (Port-Vendres, France) (represented by: B. Cambier and L. Cambier, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the defendant's decision of 28 February 2005 rejecting the request submitted by the applicant on 22 October 2004 on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, and seeking the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by a decision of 16 January 2004; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision of 28 February 2005 rejecting the request submitted by the applicant on 22 October 2004 on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, and seeking the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings brought against him by a decision of 16 January 2004;

| — | annul the defendant's decision of 26 September 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint submitted on 20 May 2005 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and seeking the reversal of the abovementioned decision of 28 February 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the defendant's decision of 26 September 2005 dismissing the applicant's complaint submitted on 20 May 2005 on the basis of Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations, and seeking the reversal of the abovementioned decision of 28 February 2005;

| — | rule that the abovementioned request of the applicant of 22 October 2004 is admissible and well-founded; |
| --- | --- |

—

rule that the abovementioned request of the applicant of 22 October 2004 is admissible and well-founded;

| — | order the defendant to pay the applicant and his family the provisional sum of EUR 1 581 801, which corresponds to half of the loss caused by the decision to set in motion and continue the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant, the other half of which is to be specified with the assistance of an expert; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the applicant and his family the provisional sum of EUR 1 581 801, which corresponds to half of the loss caused by the decision to set in motion and continue the disciplinary proceedings brought against the applicant, the other half of which is to be specified with the assistance of an expert;

| — | order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the sums above, and to do so as from 23 November 1999, the date of the conclusion of the first report of the internal investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in which the first signs of prejudice towards the applicant are shown, or, alternatively, as from 16 January 2004, the date on which the Appointing Authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay 8 % interest on all of the sums above, and to do so as from 23 November 1999, the date of the conclusion of the first report of the internal investigation carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in which the first signs of prejudice towards the applicant are shown, or, alternatively, as from 16 January 2004, the date on which the Appointing Authority decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant;

| — | designate an expert; |
| --- | --- |

—

designate an expert;

| — | order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant advances six pleas.

In the first, he claims that the disciplinary proceedings at issue were set in motion exclusively on account of the criminal proceedings introduced against him, which were settled by a final decision that there was no need to rule on the matter, given by the Brussels Chambre du Conseil (the court sitting in chambers) on 30 June 2004. The disciplinary proceedings, in his view, should therefore be treated in the same way.

In the second plea, the applicant invokes the authority of res judicata with respect to the abovementioned decision that there was no need to rule on the matter, against which the defendant did not lodge an appeal.

In the alternative, should it be held that the Appointing Authority can take further steps in the disciplinary proceedings based on facts judged once and for all by the Brussels Chambre du Conseil not to be proven, the applicant submits, in his third plea, that the contested decisions wrongly link the outcome of the proceedings brought against him with the outcome of the proceedings taking place against Ms Cresson.

Subsequently, in the fourth and fifth pleas, the applicant argues that the charges against him are wrong and that the Appointing Authority has infringed the duty to have regard for the interests of officials laid down in Article 24 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, in so far as it has not done everything within its power to understand the true course of events.

Lastly, in his final plea, the applicant submits that, in any event, the reasonable period within which the Appointing Authority should have taken a decision expired a long time ago, as the facts date from the years 1995-1996.

Regarding the application for compensation, the applicant claims that the defendant's misconduct is at the root of his nervous breakdown which forced him to end his career as an official prematurely. That event has caused him and his family material and non-material damage.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/48

---

Action brought on 5 January 2006 — Luigi Marcuccio v Commission of the European Communities

(Case F-2/06)

(2006/C 86/87)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant(s): Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: I. Cazzato, avvocato)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision closing the procedure for recognition of the applicant's legal guarantees in particular under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations in respect of an accident sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2003. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision closing the procedure for recognition of the applicant's legal guarantees in particular under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations in respect of an accident sustained by the applicant on 10 September 2003.

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the application, the applicant submits first of all that the contested decision is flawed by reason of manifest inconsistency and a complete failure to state reasons. In fact, even though on several occasions he had stated that he was committed to pursuing the procedure intended to confer upon him the benefits under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations and that he was available to be examined by the doctor appointed by the defendant, the defendant nevertheless found that the applicant was not committed to pursuing the procedure in question and therefore closed that procedure.

The applicant further alleges that the defendant infringed the law, given that there is no rule requiring an official who was the victim of an accident to contact directly the doctor appointed by the institution to fix an appointment.

Lastly, the applicant alleges that the defendant has infringed the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials under Article 24 of the Staff Regulations, in that it failed to have due regard to the interests of the applicant and acted in a manner inconsistent with official duty.

---

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/48

---

Action brought on 3 February 2006 — Suleimanova v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-12/06)

(2006/C 86/88)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Karina Suleimanova (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the European Communities in so far as it sets her recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision to appoint the applicant an official of the European Communities in so far as it sets her recruitment grade pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations;

| — | Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Committee of the Regions to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As a successful candidate in a competition for which the notice was published before 1 May 2004, the applicant was recruited after the entry into force of 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 (1).

In her application, the applicant first submits that the contested decision fails to take account of the legal framework set up by the competition notice. She claims that, pursuant to Article 12 of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations, she was recruited at a grade lower than that mentioned in the competition notice.

The applicant also considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 5, 29 and 31 of the Staff Regulations and the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. Successful candidates in the same competition or the same level of competition were graded at different levels depending on whether they were recruited before or after the entry into force of Regulation No 723/2004.

In addition, the applicant lastly alleges a breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, inasmuch as she reasonably expected to be recruited at the grade mentioned in the competition notice to fill the post for which she had applied.

---

(1)  OJEU L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1

---

III Notices

| 8.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 86/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/49

---

(2006/C 86/89)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 74, 25.3.2006

Past publications

OJ C 60, 11.3.2006

OJ C 48, 25.2.2006

OJ C 36, 11.2.2006

OJ C 22, 28.1.2006

OJ C 10, 14.1.2006

OJ C 330, 24.12.2005

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

---