# Official Journal C 190/2006

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 190 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4912 August 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 190

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4912 August 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Court of Justice |
| | COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case C-173/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana (Non-contractual liability of Member States — Damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance — National legislation limiting State liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court — Liability excluded in connection with the interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence in the exercise of judicial functions) | 1 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case C-540/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Immigration policy — Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals — Directive 2003/86/EC — Protection of fundamental rights — Right to respect for family life — Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children) | 1 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment) | 2 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case C-264/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Merger of companies — Rectification of the land register — Charging of a fee — Whether a transfer duty — Conditions for charging the fee) | 2 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case C-419/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods) | 3 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case C-459/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 89/391/EEC — Capabilities and aptitudes of persons designated to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings) | 4 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case C-466/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) — Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud (Social security — Hospital costs incurred in another Member State — Travel, accommodation and subsistence costs — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71) | 4 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case C-28/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Directive 85/511/EEC — Directive 90/425/EEC — Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC — National authorities' discretion — Principle of proportionality — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence) | 5 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case C-249/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 49 EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21 and 22 — Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a Member State other than the one where he carries out taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay VAT) | 6 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case C-264/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period) | 6 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case C-196/06 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) | 7 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case C-207/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen | 7 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case C-228/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit | 8 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case C-229/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel | 8 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case C-230/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze | 9 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case C-231/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman | 9 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case C-232/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Vercheval | 10 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case C-233/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Permesaen v Office national des pensions | 11 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case C-247/06: Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany | 11 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case C-264/06: Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg | 12 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case C-266/06 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union | 12 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case C-269/06: Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT) | 13 |
| | COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Election of a President of a Chamber of three Judges | 14 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Assignment of Judges to the Chambers | 14 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case T-613/97: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — UFEX and Others v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance provided to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Appeal — Referral of a case back to the Court of First Instance) | 15 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Regulation No 17 — Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 — Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC — Hearing Officer — Measure having binding legal effects — Admissibility — Legitimate interest — Standing of applicant or complainant — Client final buyer of goods or services — Access to statements of objections — Confidential information — Sufficient interest) | 16 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case T-10/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2006 — Girardot v Commission (Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Illegal rejection of candidature — Annulment — Reinstatement of the situation existing prior to the illegality — Fair financial compensation — Loss of the opportunity to take up a vacant post — Equitable assessment) | 16 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case T-47/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2006 — Danzer v Council (Company law — Directives 68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC — Disclosure of annual accounts — Protection of business secrets — Breach of fundamental rights — Legal basis — Action for damages — Inadmissibility) | 17 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case T-153/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a cowhide) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Earlier national figurative trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Distinctive character of an element of a trade mark — Absence of likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94) | 17 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case T-156/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment — Action for damages) | 18 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case T-192/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Atlantean Ltd v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission) | 18 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Boyle and Others v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Requests to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission) | 19 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case T-400/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment) | 19 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case T-251/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Public storage of rice — Force majeure — Processed fruit and vegetable products — Assistance to the needy — Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Flat-rate corrections — Time-limit of 24 months) | 20 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case T-123/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate) | 20 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case T-4/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2006 — Achaiber Sing v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Animal health — Requirements for the import of birds — Agreement on the application of health and phyto-sanitary measures — Compensation for damage — Partial inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law) | 21 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case T-487/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 21 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case T-488/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate) | 21 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case T-91/06: Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities | 22 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case T-107/06: Action brought on 5 April 2006 — INET ELLAS — ELEKTRONIKI IPIRESIA PLIROFORION E.P.E. v Commission of the European Communities | 22 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case T -146/06: Action brought on 22 May 2006 — SANOFI AVENTIS v OHIM — G.D. SEARLE (ATURION) | 23 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case T -148/06: Action brought on 26 May 2006 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE) | 23 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case T-155/06: Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission | 24 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case T-157/06: Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission | 24 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case T-158/06: Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX) | 25 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case T-159/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA) | 25 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case T-160/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA) | 26 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case T-163/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others v Commission | 26 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case T-164/06: Action brought on 21 June 2006 — ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS) | 27 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case T-165/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Fiorucci v OHIM — EDWIN (word mark Elio Fiorucci) | 27 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case T-166/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — PowderJect Research v OHIM (POWDERMED) | 28 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case T-168/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission | 28 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case T-172/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Expasa v OHIM — Juan Gallardo Blanco (figurative mark H) | 29 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case T-174/06: Action brought on 27 June 2006 — Inalca and Cremonini v Commission | 29 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case T-176/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission | 30 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE) | 31 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case T -157/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM-PCS Systemtechnik (T-PCS) | 31 |
| | EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case F-19/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Career Development Report — Assessment procedure for 2003) | 32 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case F-27/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances) | 32 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case F-39/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2006 –Beau v Commission (Occupational disease — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant's disease) | 33 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case F-101/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission (Officials — Time-limit for complaint — Pay slip — Admissibility — Appointment — Classification in the higher career grad e — Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations) | 33 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case F-11/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department — Manifestly inadmissible) | 33 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case F-87/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2006 — Ott and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion for 2004 — Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted — Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Action, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded ) | 34 |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Case F-52/06: Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol | 34 |
| 2006/C 190/5 | Case F-58/06: Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v Court of Justice and Commission | 35 |
| 2006/C 190/6 | Case F-69/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission | 35 |
| 2006/C 190/7 | Case F-70/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission | 36 |
| 2006/C 190/8 | Case F-71/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission | 36 |
| 2006/C 190/9 | Case F-72/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Verheyden v Commission | 37 |
| 2006/C 190/0 | Case F-73/06: Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission | 37 |
| 2006/C 190/1 | Case F-35/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission | 38 |
| 2006/C 190/2 | Case F-75/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission | 38 |
| 2006/C 190/3 | Case F -127/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 June 2006 — Nanbru v Parliament | 38 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

2006/C 190/1

Case C-173/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana (Non-contractual liability of Member States — Damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance — National legislation limiting State liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court — Liability excluded in connection with the interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence in the exercise of judicial functions)

1

2006/C 190/2

Case C-540/03: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union (Immigration policy — Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals — Directive 2003/86/EC — Protection of fundamental rights — Right to respect for family life — Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children)

1

2006/C 190/3

Case C-255/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Admissibility — Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings — Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita — Article 49 EC — National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market — National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status — Reversal of the burden of proof — Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law — Social protection — Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Pre-emption — Action to combat concealed employment)

2

2006/C 190/4

Case C-264/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg (Directive 69/335/EEC — Indirect taxes on the raising of capital — Merger of companies — Rectification of the land register — Charging of a fee — Whether a transfer duty — Conditions for charging the fee)

2

2006/C 190/5

Case C-419/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (Post-clearance recovery of import duties — Remission of import duties — Conditions — Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code — Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission — Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)

3

2006/C 190/6

Case C-459/04: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Social policy — Protection of the safety and health of workers — Directive 89/391/EEC — Capabilities and aptitudes of persons designated to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings)

4

2006/C 190/7

Case C-466/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) — Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud (Social security — Hospital costs incurred in another Member State — Travel, accommodation and subsistence costs — Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

4

2006/C 190/8

Case C-28/05: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Agriculture — Control of foot-and-mouth disease — Directive 85/511/EEC — Directive 90/425/EEC — Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC — National authorities' discretion — Principle of proportionality — Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

5

2006/C 190/9

Case C-249/05: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 28 EC and 49 EC — Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 21 and 22 — Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a Member State other than the one where he carries out taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay VAT)

6

2006/C 190/0

Case C-264/05: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2001/19/EC — Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications — Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

6

2006/C 190/1

Case C-196/06 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

7

2006/C 190/2

Case C-207/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

7

2006/C 190/3

Case C-228/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

8

2006/C 190/4

Case C-229/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

8

2006/C 190/5

Case C-230/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

9

2006/C 190/6

Case C-231/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman

9

2006/C 190/7

Case C-232/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Vercheval

10

2006/C 190/8

Case C-233/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Permesaen v Office national des pensions

11

2006/C 190/9

Case C-247/06: Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

11

2006/C 190/0

Case C-264/06: Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

12

2006/C 190/1

Case C-266/06 P: Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union

12

2006/C 190/2

Case C-269/06: Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

13

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2006/C 190/3

Election of a President of a Chamber of three Judges

14

2006/C 190/4

Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

14

2006/C 190/5

Case T-613/97: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — UFEX and Others v Commission (State aid — Postal sector — Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest — Logistical and commercial assistance provided to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector — Appeal — Referral of a case back to the Court of First Instance)

15

2006/C 190/6

Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission (Action for annulment — Competition — Regulation No 17 — Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 — Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC — Hearing Officer — Measure having binding legal effects — Admissibility — Legitimate interest — Standing of applicant or complainant — Client final buyer of goods or services — Access to statements of objections — Confidential information — Sufficient interest)

16

2006/C 190/7

Case T-10/02: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2006 — Girardot v Commission (Staff case — Members of the temporary staff — Illegal rejection of candidature — Annulment — Reinstatement of the situation existing prior to the illegality — Fair financial compensation — Loss of the opportunity to take up a vacant post — Equitable assessment)

16

2006/C 190/8

Case T-47/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2006 — Danzer v Council (Company law — Directives 68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC — Disclosure of annual accounts — Protection of business secrets — Breach of fundamental rights — Legal basis — Action for damages — Inadmissibility)

17

2006/C 190/9

Case T-153/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a cowhide) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Earlier national figurative trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide in black and white — Distinctive character of an element of a trade mark — Absence of likelihood of confusion — Rejection of the opposition — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

17

2006/C 190/0

Case T-156/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

18

2006/C 190/1

Case T-192/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Atlantean Ltd v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission)

18

2006/C 190/2

Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Boyle and Others v Commission (Fishing — Multiannual guidance programmes — Requests to increase the objectives on safety grounds — Decision 97/413/EC — Refusal of the Commission — Actions for annulment — Admissibility — Competence of the Commission)

19

2006/C 190/3

Case T-400/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission (Officials — Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff — Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal — Second refusal of entry — Action for annulment)

19

2006/C 190/4

Case T-251/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission (EAGGF — Expenditure excluded from Community financing — Public storage of rice — Force majeure — Processed fruit and vegetable products — Assistance to the needy — Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector — Flat-rate corrections — Time-limit of 24 months)

20

2006/C 190/5

Case T-123/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — No need to adjudicate)

20

2006/C 190/6

Case T-4/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2006 — Achaiber Sing v Commission (Non-contractual liability of the Community — Animal health — Requirements for the import of birds — Agreement on the application of health and phyto-sanitary measures — Compensation for damage — Partial inadmissibility — Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

21

2006/C 190/7

Case T-487/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

21

2006/C 190/8

Case T-488/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN) (Community trade mark — Refusal of registration — Withdrawal of the application for registration — No need to adjudicate)

21

2006/C 190/9

Case T-91/06: Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities

22

2006/C 190/0

Case T-107/06: Action brought on 5 April 2006 — INET ELLAS — ELEKTRONIKI IPIRESIA PLIROFORION E.P.E. v Commission of the European Communities

22

2006/C 190/1

Case T -146/06: Action brought on 22 May 2006 — SANOFI AVENTIS v OHIM — G.D. SEARLE (ATURION)

23

2006/C 190/2

Case T -148/06: Action brought on 26 May 2006 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)

23

2006/C 190/3

Case T-155/06: Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission

24

2006/C 190/4

Case T-157/06: Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

24

2006/C 190/5

Case T-158/06: Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

25

2006/C 190/6

Case T-159/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

25

2006/C 190/7

Case T-160/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

26

2006/C 190/8

Case T-163/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others v Commission

26

2006/C 190/9

Case T-164/06: Action brought on 21 June 2006 — ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS)

27

2006/C 190/0

Case T-165/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Fiorucci v OHIM — EDWIN (word mark Elio Fiorucci)

27

2006/C 190/1

Case T-166/06: Action brought on 28 June 2006 — PowderJect Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)

28

2006/C 190/2

Case T-168/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

28

2006/C 190/3

Case T-172/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Expasa v OHIM — Juan Gallardo Blanco (figurative mark H)

29

2006/C 190/4

Case T-174/06: Action brought on 27 June 2006 — Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

29

2006/C 190/5

Case T-176/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission

30

2006/C 190/6

Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02: Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE)

31

2006/C 190/7

Case T -157/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM-PCS Systemtechnik (T-PCS)

31

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

2006/C 190/8

Case F-19/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission (Officials — Career Development Report — Assessment procedure for 2003)

32

2006/C 190/9

Case F-27/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)

32

2006/C 190/0

Case F-39/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2006 –Beau v Commission (Occupational disease — Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant's disease)

33

2006/C 190/1

Case F-101/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission (Officials — Time-limit for complaint — Pay slip — Admissibility — Appointment — Classification in the higher career grad e — Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

33

2006/C 190/2

Case F-11/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission (Officials — Remuneration — Annual travel expenses — Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department — Manifestly inadmissible)

33

2006/C 190/3

Case F-87/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2006 — Ott and Others v Commission (Officials — Promotion for 2004 — Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted — Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance — Action, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded )

34

2006/C 190/4

Case F-52/06: Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol

34

2006/C 190/5

Case F-58/06: Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

35

2006/C 190/6

Case F-69/06: Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission

35

2006/C 190/7

Case F-70/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission

36

2006/C 190/8

Case F-71/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

36

2006/C 190/9

Case F-72/06: Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Verheyden v Commission

37

2006/C 190/0

Case F-73/06: Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission

37

2006/C 190/1

Case F-35/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission

38

2006/C 190/2

Case F-75/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission

38

2006/C 190/3

Case F -127/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 June 2006 — Nanbru v Parliament

38

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| 2006/C 190/4 | Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 178, 29.7.2006 | 39 |

III   Notices

2006/C 190/4

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European UnionOJ C 178, 29.7.2006

Official Journal of the European Union

39

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

EN

---

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 13 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova (Italy)) — Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation v Repubblica italiana

(Case C-173/03) (1)

(Non-contractual liability of Member States - Damage caused to individuals by infringements of Community law attributable to a national court adjudicating at last instance - National legislation limiting State liability to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court - Liability excluded in connection with the interpretation of provisions of law or assessment of facts or evidence in the exercise of judicial functions)

(2006/C 190/01)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Tribunale di Genova

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA, in liquidation

Defendant: Repubblica italiana

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale di Genova — Non-contractual liability of a Member State towards its nationals for errors committed by its own courts in the application of Community law, in particular the failure by a court adjudicating at last instance to refer a case to the Court in accordance with Article 234 EC

Operative part of the judgment

Community law precludes national legislation which excludes State liability, in a general manner, for damage caused to individuals by an infringement of Community law attributable to a court adjudicating at last instance by reason of the fact that the infringement in question results from an interpretation of provisions of law or an assessment of facts or evidence carried out by that court.

Community law also precludes national legislation which limits such liability solely to cases of intentional fault and serious misconduct on the part of the court, if such a limitation were to lead to exclusion of the liability of the Member State concerned in other cases where a manifest infringement of the applicable law was committed, as set out in paragraphs 53 to 56 of the judgment in Case C-224/01 Köbler [2003] ECR I-10239.

---

(1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/1

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 June 2006 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union

(Case C-540/03) (1)

(Immigration policy - Right to family reunification of minor children of third country nationals - Directive 2003/86/EC - Protection of fundamental rights - Right to respect for family life - Obligation to have regard to the interests of minor children)

(2006/C 190/02)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: European Parliament (represented by: H. Duintjer Tebbens and A. Caiola, Agents)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: O. Petersen and M. Simm, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. O'Reilly and C. Ladenburger, Agents) and Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: A. Tiemann, W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the last subparagraph of Article 4(1), Article 4(6) and Article 8 of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) — Derogations from the right to family reunification of minor children.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1)

Dismisses the application;

| 2) | Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs; |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the European Parliament to pay the costs;

| 3) | Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3)

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany and the Commission of the European Communities to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/2

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic

(Case C-255/04) (1)

(Admissibility - Inconsistency between the grounds pleaded and the heads of claim in the application initiating proceedings - Rule whereby a Court may not rule ultra petita - Article 49 EC - National legislation making the grant of a licence subject to the needs of the market - National legislation imposing a presumption of salaried status - Reversal of the burden of proof - Absence of detailed procedural rules within the meaning of the Peterbroeck case-law - Social protection - Coordination of the applicable legislation by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Pre-emption - Action to combat concealed employment)

(2006/C 190/03)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, Agents)

Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and A. Hare, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 EC and 49 EC — French system for the grant of licences to performing artists established in another Member State who do not possess a licence issued under comparable conditions in their State of origin — Presumption of salaried status applied to performing artists recognised as service providers established in their State of origin where they usually provide similar services

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | By making the grant of a licence to performing artists' engagements agencies, established in another Member State, subject to the need to engage performers, and






  — | by imposing the presumption of salaried status on performing artists who are recognised as service providers and established in their Member State of origin, where they usually provide similar services, |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

By making the grant of a licence to performing artists' engagements agencies, established in another Member State, subject to the need to engage performers, and

—

by imposing the presumption of salaried status on performing artists who are recognised as service providers and established in their Member State of origin, where they usually provide similar services,

| — | the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC. |
| --- | --- |

—

the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 EC.

| 2. | The action is dismissed as to the remainder. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The action is dismissed as to the remainder.

| 3. | The Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Commission of the European Communities and the French Republic are ordered to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/2

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Breisach — Germany) — Badischer Winzerkeller eG v Land Baden-Württemberg

(Case C-264/04) (1)

(Directive 69/335/EEC - Indirect taxes on the raising of capital - Merger of companies - Rectification of the land register - Charging of a fee - Whether a 'transfer duty' - Conditions for charging the fee)

(2006/C 190/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Breisach

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Badischer Winzerkeller eG

Defendant: Land Baden-Württemberg

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Amtsgericht Breisach -am- Rhein — Interpretation of Articles 4, 10 (c) and 12(2)of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p.412), as amended by Council Directive 73/79/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 13), Council Directive 73/80/EEC of 9 April 1973 (OJ 1973 L 103, p. 15), Council Directive 74/553/EEC of 7 November 1974 (0J 1974 L 303, p. 9), and Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985 (0J 1985 L 156, p. 23) — Fee due for rectification of the land register following a change of owner of an agricultural cooperative company as a result of merger and calculated by reference to the value of the land

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | A fee charged for rectification of the land register, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls in principle within the prohibition under Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985. |
| --- | --- |

1.

A fee charged for rectification of the land register, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, falls in principle within the prohibition under Article 10(c) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, as amended by Council Directive 85/303/EEC of 10 June 1985.

| 2. | A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may, in derogation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar operations in the taxing Member State.
  It is for the national court to verify whether that tax complies with the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303. |
| --- | --- |

2.

A tax such as that at issue in the main proceedings may, in derogation from Article 10(c) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, be regarded as a transfer duty authorised by Article 12(1)(b) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303, provided it is not higher than those applicable to similar operations in the taxing Member State.

It is for the national court to verify whether that tax complies with the provisions of Article 12(2) of Directive 69/335, as amended by Directive 85/303.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 11.09.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'appel de Poitiers, France) — Conseil général de la Vienne v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

(Case C-419/04) (1)

(Post-clearance recovery of import duties - Remission of import duties - Conditions - Article 871 of the regulation implementing the Community Customs Code - Scope of the obligation to submit the case to the Commission - Failure on the part of a person liable for payment acting in good faith to declare additional royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of imported goods)

(2006/C 190/05)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour d'appel de Poitiers

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Conseil général de la Vienne

Respondent: Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour d'Appel de Poitiers (Court of Appeal, Poitiers, France) — Interpretation of Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1) — Recovery of the amount of the customs debt — Obligatory nature of reference to the Commission in the event of doubt as to the scope of the criteria relating to the recovery or the remission of duties resulting from a customs debt

Operative part of the judgment

Article 871 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1677/98 of 29 July 1998, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of a recovery procedure or a procedure for remission of uncollected customs duties, the national customs authorities are not required to submit the case to the Commission for a decision where the doubts which they had had as regards the precise scope of the criteria laid down in Article 220(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code with regard to a particular case have disappeared, even after those authorities have expressed their intention to refer the matter to the Commission, or where the doubts relate to the subsequent entry in the accounts of customs duties which were not collected due to an omission on the part of an importer acting in good faith to declare royalties which should have been incorporated in the customs value of the imported goods.

---

(1)  OJ C 284, 20.11.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-459/04) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Social policy - Protection of the safety and health of workers - Directive 89/391/EEC - Capabilities and aptitudes of persons designated to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings)

(2006/C 190/06)

Language of the case: Swedish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Kreppel, J. Enegren and V. Kreuschitz, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Sweden (represented by: A. Kruse and K. Wistrand, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Incomplete transposition of Article 7(8) of Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (OJ 1989 L 183, p. 1) — Definitions of capabilities and aptitudes of workers designated by the employer to carry out activities related to protection against and prevention of occupational hazards in undertakings

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities and the Kingdom of Sweden to pay their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 45, 19.02.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander (Spain)) — Servicio Cántabro de Salud v Servicio Cántabro de Salud

(Case C-466/04) (1)

(Social security - Hospital costs incurred in another Member State - Travel, accommodation and subsistence costs - Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71)

(2006/C 190/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Manuel Acereda Herrera

Respondent: Servicio Cántabro de Salud

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Cantabria, Santander — Interpretation of Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p.1) — Reimbursement of expenses for travel, stay and subsistence by the institution which granted authorisation for treatment abroad — Articles 10 EC and 249 EC — Compatibility with Community law of national legislation recognising rights additional to those conferred by Article 27 of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended — Freedom to provide services — Discrimination based on nationality — Compatibility of national legislation with Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and 87 EC

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that authorisation by the competent institution for an insured person to go to another Member State in order there to receive hospital treatment appropriate to his medical condition does not confer on such a person the right to be reimbursed by the competent institution for the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which that person and any person accompanying him incurred in the territory of that latter Member State, with the exception of the costs of accommodation and meals in hospital for the insured person himself. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Article 22(1)(c) and (2) and Article 36 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, must be interpreted as meaning that authorisation by the competent institution for an insured person to go to another Member State in order there to receive hospital treatment appropriate to his medical condition does not confer on such a person the right to be reimbursed by the competent institution for the costs of travel, accommodation and subsistence which that person and any person accompanying him incurred in the territory of that latter Member State, with the exception of the costs of accommodation and meals in hospital for the insured person himself.

| 2. | National legislation in which provision is made for entitlement to benefits additional to those provided for in Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, in the situation covered by paragraph (1)(a) of that article, but not in that covered by paragraph (1)(c) thereof, does not obstruct the direct effect of that provision or infringe the principle of cooperation in good faith stemming from Article 10 EC. |
| --- | --- |

2.

National legislation in which provision is made for entitlement to benefits additional to those provided for in Article 22(1) of Regulation No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, in the situation covered by paragraph (1)(a) of that article, but not in that covered by paragraph (1)(c) thereof, does not obstruct the direct effect of that provision or infringe the principle of cooperation in good faith stemming from Article 10 EC.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 22.01.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 15 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven –Netherlands) — G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-28/05) (1)

(Agriculture - Control of foot-and-mouth disease - Directive 85/511/EEC - Directive 90/425/EEC - Examinations to detect foot-and mouth-disease carried out by a laboratory not listed in the annex to Directive 85/511/EEC - National authorities' discretion - Principle of proportionality - Principle of respect for the rights of the defence)

(2006/C 190/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: G.J. Dokter, Maatschap Van den Top, W. Boekhout

Defendant: Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven — Interpretation of Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease (OJ 1985 L 315, p. 11) — Article 11(1), first indent, Article 13(1), second indent, and Annex B — Direct effect — Laboratory not listed in Annex B — National authorities' discretion

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby rules:

| 1. | Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the particulars of a laboratory included in Annex B to that directive, which were not entered in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17 of the directive, lead to that laboratory's losing its status as a laboratory included in that annex only if those changes are likely to have repercussions on the safety of the laboratory as regards the risk of dissemination of the foot-and-mouth virus during the examinations performed by the laboratory and thus increase the risk of contamination of susceptible local animals. Moreover, Directive 85/511 does not preclude a Member State from taking the measures to control foot-and-mouth disease provided for in Article 10(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market on the basis of results of an examination carried out by a laboratory which is not included in Annex B to Directive 85/511. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Council Directive 85/511/EEC of 18 November 1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouth disease, as amended by Council Directive 90/423/EEC of 26 June 1990, must be interpreted as meaning that changes to the particulars of a laboratory included in Annex B to that directive, which were not entered in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 17 of the directive, lead to that laboratory's losing its status as a laboratory included in that annex only if those changes are likely to have repercussions on the safety of the laboratory as regards the risk of dissemination of the foot-and-mouth virus during the examinations performed by the laboratory and thus increase the risk of contamination of susceptible local animals. Moreover, Directive 85/511 does not preclude a Member State from taking the measures to control foot-and-mouth disease provided for in Article 10(1) of Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market on the basis of results of an examination carried out by a laboratory which is not included in Annex B to Directive 85/511.

| 2. | The competent authority is required to follow up the results of examinations provided by a laboratory which has the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 and to adopt, in principle, the measures provided for in that directive or any other measure required, given the need to control foot-and-mouth disease promptly and effectively. The competent authority is required to take into consideration even results provided by a laboratory which does not have that status in order to adopt, where necessary, the appropriate measures provided for by Community legislation. However, as that laboratory no longer necessarily offers the same guarantees of reliability as a laboratory having the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B, the competent authority must make sure, before taking the appropriate measures, that those results are reliable. In any event, the authority may adopt measures to control foot-and-mouth disease only in compliance with the general principles of Community law, including in particular the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The competent authority is required to follow up the results of examinations provided by a laboratory which has the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B to Directive 85/511 and to adopt, in principle, the measures provided for in that directive or any other measure required, given the need to control foot-and-mouth disease promptly and effectively. The competent authority is required to take into consideration even results provided by a laboratory which does not have that status in order to adopt, where necessary, the appropriate measures provided for by Community legislation. However, as that laboratory no longer necessarily offers the same guarantees of reliability as a laboratory having the status of a laboratory listed in Annex B, the competent authority must make sure, before taking the appropriate measures, that those results are reliable. In any event, the authority may adopt measures to control foot-and-mouth disease only in compliance with the general principles of Community law, including in particular the principle of proportionality and fundamental rights.

---

(1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-249/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 28 EC and 49 EC - Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 21 and 22 - Obligation for a taxable person who is established in a Member State other than the one where he carries out taxable transactions to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay VAT)

(2006/C 190/09)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and I. Koskinen, Agents)

Defendant: Republic of Finland (represented by: T. Pynnä and E. Bygglin, Agents)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 28 and 49 EC and Articles 21 and 22 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 (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — National legislation imposing the obligation, for a taxable person who is not established in a country, but who carries out taxable transactions there, to appoint a tax representative who is not directly liable to pay tax

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out taxable transactions there and are established in another Member State or in a non-member State with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authorities as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by imposing the appointment of a tax representative on taxable persons not established in Finland, but who carry out taxable transactions there and are established in another Member State or in a non-member State with which a convention has been concluded concerning mutual assistance of the competent authorities as regards indirect taxes, the scope of which corresponds to the scope defined in Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to certain levies, duties, taxes and other measures, as amended by Council Directive 2001/44/EC of 15 June 2001, and in Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of 7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 218/92, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21 and 22 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, as amended by Council Directive 2001/115/EC of 20 December 2001;

| 2. | Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 193, 06.08.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-264/05) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/19/EC - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other qualifications - Nurse, dentist, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2006/C 190/10)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Manville and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: C. Schulze-Bahr, Agent)

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose within the prescribed period, Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor (OJ 2001 L 206, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to ensure the complete transposition of Directive 2001/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

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

2.

Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 20.08.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

---

Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

(Case C-196/06 P)

(2006/C 190/11)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03) of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Resolution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark application No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03) of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Resolution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark application No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1) when it found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view, the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of several important factors when determining the existence of the likelihood of confusion.

---

(1)  OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/7

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen (Austria) lodged on 8 May 2006 — Schwaninger Martin, Viehhandel — Viehexport v Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

(Case C-207/06)

(2006/C 190/12)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Unabhängiger Finanzsenat Salzburg-Aigen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Martin Schwaninger, Viehhandel — Viehexport

Defendant: Zollamt Salzburg, Erstattungen

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) of 18 March 1998 to be understood as meaning that Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2) of 19 November 1991 applies analogously in the case of transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 (1) of 18 March 1998 to be understood as meaning that Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC (2) of 19 November 1991 applies analogously in the case of transport by sea on a regular and direct link between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals?

| 2. | If question one is answered in the affirmative, is Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that, in the case of transport of bovine animals, the journey time by sea does not comply with the rule in point 4(d) if, after 14 hours of travel, the animals are not given a rest period of at least one hour? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If question one is answered in the affirmative, is Chapter VII 48 point 7(b) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that, in the case of transport of bovine animals, the journey time by sea does not comply with the rule in point 4(d) if, after 14 hours of travel, the animals are not given a rest period of at least one hour?

| 3. | If question one is answered in the negative, is the then applicable provision in Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the journey time by sea on a regular and direct link between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals is immaterial provided that the animals are regularly fed and watered and, in such a case, does a further period of 29 hours of transport by road begin immediately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination? |
| --- | --- |

3.

If question one is answered in the negative, is the then applicable provision in Chapter VII 48 point 7(a) of the annex to Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the journey time by sea on a regular and direct link between a geographical point of the Community and a geographical point in a third country by means of vehicles loaded on to vessels without unloading of the animals is immaterial provided that the animals are regularly fed and watered and, in such a case, does a further period of 29 hours of transport by road begin immediately after unloading the lorry at the port of destination?

| 4. | If question three (point 2.3) is answered in the affirmative, is the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the staff in charge of the transport are required to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the ferry journey and that a pre-typed statement indicating that 'during the ferry journey, animals are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings' does not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC, with the effect in law that the failure to sate the measures actually taken to care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export refund in so far as the proof required cannot by provided by any other means? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If question three (point 2.3) is answered in the affirmative, is the first indent of Article 5A point 2(d)(ii) of Directive 91/628/EEC to be understood as meaning that the staff in charge of the transport are required to state in the route plan the times at which the animals transported were fed and watered during the ferry journey and that a pre-typed statement indicating that 'during the ferry journey, animals are fed and watered in the evenings and mornings, at midday, and in the evenings and mornings' does not meet the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC, with the effect in law that the failure to sate the measures actually taken to care for the animals leads to a loss of the right to an export refund in so far as the proof required cannot by provided by any other means?

---

(1)  OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19.

(2)  OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg lodged on 19 May 2006 — Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli v Bundesrepublik Deutschland; Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit

(Case C-228/06)

(2006/C 190/13)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin-Brandenburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Mehmet Soysal, Cengiz Salkim, Ibrahim Savatli

Respondent: Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany)

Joined party: Bundesagentur für Arbeit (Federal Republic of Germany)

Questions referred

| 1. | Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 (1) to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Paragraph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany without a visa? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 (1) to the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey to be interpreted in such a way that it constitutes a restriction on freedom to provide services if a Turkish national who works in international transport for a Turkish undertaking as a driver of a lorry registered in Germany has to be in possession of a Schengen visa to enter Germany under Paragraph 4(1) and Paragraph 6 of the Aufenthaltsgesetz (German law on residence) of 30 July 2004 and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 (2) even though on the date on which the Additional Protocol entered into force he was permitted to enter the Federal Republic of Germany without a visa?

| 2. | If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in (1) do not require a visa to enter Germany? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, should Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol be interpreted as meaning that the Turkish nationals mentioned in (1) do not require a visa to enter Germany?

---

(1)  JO 1972 L 293, p.4.

(2)  OJ 2001 L 81, p.1.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/8

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany), lodged on 22 May 2006 — Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH v Hauptzollamt Kiel

(Case C-229/06)

(2006/C 190/14)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Finanzgericht Hamburg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Sunshine Deutschland Handelsgesellschaft mbH

Defendant: Hauptzollamt Kiel

Question referred

Should shelled pumpkin seeds from pumpkins cultivated as vegetables, which have lost their ability to germinate and are intended for the baking industry, be classified under subheading 1209 91 90 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (1) or under subheading 1212 99 80 of the CN?

---

(1)  Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff — OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy) of 12 January 2006 — Militzer & Münch GmbH v Ministero delle Finanze

(Case C-230/06)

(2006/C 190/15)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Corte Suprema Di Cassazione (Italy)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Militzer & Münch GmbH

Defendant: Ministero delle Finanze

Question(s) referred

| (1) | (a) | Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC (1), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible? |
| --- | --- | --- |

(1)

(a)

Is Article 11a(1) of Regulation No 87/1062/EEC (1), as amended by Regulation No 93/2454/EEC (2), to be interpreted as meaning that the 11- month time-limit within which the administration of the customs office of departure must communicate the fact that goods moving under the Community transit procedure have not been discharged is applicable in a case where discharge by the customs office of destination is evidenced by forged documents and the forgery is not easily discernible?

| (b) | For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable? |
| --- | --- |

(b)

For the purposes of the interpretation of that provision, are the principles set out in the judgments of the Court of Justice in Case C-325/00 and Case C-222/01 applicable?

| (c) | In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation? |
| --- | --- |

(c)

In circumstances such as those under consideration, is it contrary to the principle of proportionality for a customs clearance agent to be held liable for all of the consequences of an incorrect Community transit operation?

| (2) | In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is Article 11a(2) applicable? |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In circumstances such as those set out in Question 1, is Article 11a(2) applicable?

| (3) | Is the question of whether the customs authorities have competence to be determined according to the criteria laid down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of Regulation No 92/2913/EEC (3)? |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Is the question of whether the customs authorities have competence to be determined according to the criteria laid down by the second or third indent of Article 215(1) of Regulation No 92/2913/EEC (3)?

---

(1)  OJ L 107, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 253, p. 1.

(3)  OJ L 302, p. 1.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/9

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Jonkman

(Case C-231/06)

(2006/C 190/16)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national des pensions

Defendant: Émilienne Jonkman

Questions referred

| 1. | With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

| 2. | With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/10

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Office national des pensions v Vercheval

(Case C-232/06)

(2006/C 190/17)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Office national des pensions

Defendant: Hélène Vercheval

Questions referred

| 1. | With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2)):
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2)):

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

| 2. | With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 22 May 2006 — Permesaen v Office national des pensions

(Case C-233/06)

(2006/C 190/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour du travail de Bruxelles

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Noëlle Permesaen

Defendant: Office national des pensions

Questions referred

| 1. | With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

1.

With regard to the adjustment contributions (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting Article 16b(2))

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making retroactive payment (a single payment of a very large sum) of contributions recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the applicable time-limit for recovery of the contributions which have become payable by virtue of the adoption of that legislation?

| 2. | With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))
  Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?
  If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

With regard to the interest for late payment (Article 4 of the Royal Decree of 25 June 1997 inserting the third subparagraph of Article 16b(4))

Is Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as meaning that it authorises a Member State to adopt rules intended to allow a category of persons of a particular sex, originally discriminated against, to become eligible for the pension scheme applicable to the category of persons of the opposite sex by making payment of a large amount of late payment interest recovery of which would be time-barred under the legislation applicable in that State in the case of the latter category of persons?

If so, is not Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 to be interpreted as requiring a Member State to adapt legislation contrary to that provision as soon as a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Communities rules that there is a conflict of laws and, at the very least, within the time-limit applicable for recovery of late payment interest due as a result of the adoption of that legislation?

---

(1)  Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/11

---

Action brought on 2 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-247/06)

(2006/C 190/19)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

Form of order sought

| — | Declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment by authorising the construction and operation of a wood gas firing plant on the premises of Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH in Herzogenrath without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declaration that the Federal Republic of Germany has infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1) of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment by authorising the construction and operation of a wood gas firing plant on the premises of Nivelsteiner Sandwerke und Sandsteinbrüche GmbH in Herzogenrath without first carrying out an assessment of the effects on the environment;

| — | Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The subject-matter of the application is an authorisation given for a wood gas firing plant for obtaining process heat and electrical current for sand mining and sand reclamation. According to the application for authorisation, only such wood chips were to be used as did not constitute dangerous waste. However, after the report on environmental effects was drawn up in accordance with Directive 92/43/EEC, the application for authorisation was amended so as to include the use of wood chips that were classifiable as dangerous waste. The authorisation for the construction and operation of the plant was issued on 7 November 2002 without any new assessment of the environmental effects on the basis of the amended application. In this case, therefore, the possible environmental impact has not been sufficiently investigated, and the Commission has no information that the effects of burning dangerous waste have been investigated. The defendant should have carried out renewed full public participation after the change in the application for authorisation, but failed to do so.

The Commission takes the view that the Federal Republic of Germany has thereby infringed Article 4(1) in conjunction with Annex I, point 9, of Directive 85/37/EEC.

The Commission does not accept the defendant's argument that, under the current version of the directive, an environmental assessment is not compulsory even where dangerous waste is burned, on the ground that, in this case, the main purpose of the plant's operation is not waste disposal but the utilisation of waste. Even if Annex I of the current version does refer only to ‘disposal’, it would be irreconcilable with the essential purpose to exclude projects with obvious environmental effect from systematic examination. Waste utilisation procedures are not necessarily less environmentally threatening than disposal procedures; as is apparent in this case, it depends on the particular type of treatment. The Commission takes the view that the term 'waste-disposal' in point 9 of Annex I to the regulation covers both the utilisation and disposal of waste. The contrary legal interpretation of the defendant would lead to a decisive step backwards in relation to the present legal situation, as installations for the utilisation of waste fall entirely outside the scope of the directive.

---

(1)  OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/12

---

Action brought on 16 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-264/06)

(2006/C 190/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: D. Maidani and R. Vidal Puig, Agents)

Defendant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

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

—

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

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

—

order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 16(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 provides: ‘The sanctions laid down by Member States for infringements of this Regulation shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive’. Under Article 19, the regulation entered into force on 17 February 2005. According to the information available to the Commission, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has not yet met the obligation to lay down sanctions, in the event of infringement 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).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/12

---

Appeal brought on 17 June 2006 by Degussa AG against the judgment delivered on 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 Degussa AG v Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union

(Case C-266/06 P)

(2006/C 190/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Degussa AG (represented by: R. Bechtold, M. Karl and C. Steinle, lawyers,)

Other parties to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union

Forms of order sought

| 1. | Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the appellant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 5 April 2006 in Case T-279/02 (1), in so far as it affects the appellant.

| 2. | Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002 (Case C.37.519 — Methionin) in so far as it affects the appellant.
  In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annulment of the Commission's decision of 2 July 2002 (Case C.37.519 — Methionin) in so far as it affects the appellant.

In the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the appellant by Article 3 of that decision;

| 3 | In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3

In the alternative to 2 above, referral of the matter back to the Court of First Instance for determination in accordance with the judgment of the Court of Justice;

| 4. | The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Commission to pay the claimant's costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in any event.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant makes four pleas on appeal:

| — | First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17. |
| --- | --- |

—

First, that the Court of First Instance disregarded the principle of certainty (nulla poena sine lege certa) in relation to penal provisions, and consequently wrongly denied the unlawfulness of Article 15(2) of Regulation No 17.

| — | Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) and the basic right to a fair hearing. |
| --- | --- |

—

Second, that the Court of First Instance distorted the facts in its assessment of the duration of the infringement, and infringed the presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo) and the basic right to a fair hearing.

| — | Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality (in the form of the principle that punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even though the infringement had little impact on the price of methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons. |
| --- | --- |

—

Third, that the Court of First Instance infringed the principle of proportionality (in the form of the principle that punishment should be proportionate to fault), by setting the basic amount of the fine at EUR 30 million, even though the infringement had little impact on the price of methionine. At the same time, the Court infringed the duty to state reasons by stating contradictory reasons.

| — | Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addition to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment. |
| --- | --- |

—

Fourth, the Court of First Instance did not reduce the addition to the basic amount of the fine, which is designed to have a sufficiently deterrent effect, in accordance with the difference in size between the appellant and Aventis, and thereby infringed the principle of equal treatment.

---

(1)  OJ 2006 C 131, p. 37.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/13

---

Action brought on 15 June 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

(Case C-269/06)

(2006/C 190/22)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J.-F. Pasquier and D. Martin, Agents)

Defendant: Centre de traduction des organes de l'Union européenne (CDT)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the CDT's decision not to pay employer's contributions to the Community pension scheme; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the CDT's decision not to pay employer's contributions to the Community pension scheme;

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

—

order the CDT to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Under Article 83a(2) of the new Staff Regulations, ‘agencies which do not receive a subsidy from the general budget of the European Union shall pay into that budget the entire amount of the contributions needed to finance the scheme.’

On that basis, the Commission requested that CDT pay into the budget sums corresponding to the employer's contribution to the pension scheme for 2005 and subsequent years.

The CDT nonetheless refused, denying that it was a self-financed agency. The CDT claims that it should be regarded as a subsidised agency. According to the Commission, however, it is not in dispute that the CDT has received no operating subsidies from the general budget of the European Union since 1998; it has received merely a remuneration commensurate with its services to inter-institutional cooperation in the form of translation.

---

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/14

---

Election of a President of a Chamber of three Judges

(2006/C 190/23)

On 5 July 2006, the Court of First Instance elected, in accordance with Article 15(3) of the Rules of Procedure, Judge Cooke as President of a Chamber of three Judges for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/14

---

Assignment of Judges to the Chambers

(2006/C 190/24)

On 5 July 2006, the Court of First Instance decided to establish five Chambers of five Judges and five Chambers of three Judges for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007 and to assign Judges to them as follows:

| | First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
  Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

First Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:

Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Cooke, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;

| | First Chamber, sitting with three judges:
  Mr Cooke, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

First Chamber, sitting with three judges:

Mr Cooke, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas, Ms Labucka and Ms Trstenjak, Judges;

| | Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
  Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

Second Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:

Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber, Mr Meij, Mr Forwood, Ms Pelikánová and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

| | Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
  Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber






  (a) | Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Second Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Pirrung, President of Chamber

(a)

Mr Meij and Ms Pelikánová, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Forwood and Mr Papasavvas, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Forwood and Mr Papasavvas, Judges;

| | Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:
  Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

Third Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five Judges:

Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber, Ms Tiili, Mr Azizi, Ms Cremona and Mr Czúcz, Judges;

| | Third Chamber, sitting with three judges:
  Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber






  (a) | Ms Tiili and Mr Czúcz, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Third Chamber, sitting with three judges:

Mr Jaeger, President of Chamber

(a)

Ms Tiili and Mr Czúcz, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Azizi and Ms Cremona, Judges;

| | Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:
  Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Vadapalas and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:

Mr Legal, President of Chamber, Ms Lindh, Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka, Mr Vadapalas and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges;

| | Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
  Mr Legal, President of Chamber






  (a) | Ms Lindh and Mr Vadapalas, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fourth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Legal, President of Chamber

(a)

Ms Lindh and Mr Vadapalas, Judges;

| (b) | Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Ms Wiszniewska-Białecka and Mr Moavero Milanesi, Judges;

| | Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:

  Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges; |
| --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition, sitting with five judges:

Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber, Ms Martins Ribeiro, Mr Dehousse, Mr Šváby and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

| | Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:
  Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber






  (a) | Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges; |
| --- | --- | --- |

Fifth Chamber, sitting with three Judges:

Mr Vilaras, President of Chamber

(a)

Ms Martins Ribeiro and Ms Jürimäe, Judges;

| (b) | Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Mr Dehousse and Mr Šváby, Judges.

In the First Chamber sitting with three Judges, the Judges who sit with the President of the Chamber to make up the Chamber will be designated in turn, in the order provided for by Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, subject to the presence of connected cases. In the Second to Fifth Chambers sitting with three Judges, the President of the Chamber will sit either with the Judges referred to at (a) above or with those referred to at (b) above, depending on which of those formations the Judge-Rapporteur belongs to. For cases in which the President of the Chamber is the Judge-Rapporteur, the President of the Chamber will sit with the Judges of one or other of those formations alternately in accordance with the order in which the cases are registered, subject to the presence of connected cases.

In cases where the written procedure was completed and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed before 1 October 2006, the First Chamber sitting with three Judges shall continue to sit with the same composition as previously for the oral procedure, the deliberation and the judgment.

Composition of the Grand Chamber

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 10(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007 the 13 Judges of whom the Grand Chamber is composed shall be the President of the Court of First Instance, the Presidents of the Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Chambers, Extended Compositions, the Judges of the Chamber, Extended Composition, who would have had to hear the case in question if it had been assigned to a Chamber composed of five Judges, and as many other Judges as necessary to complete the Grand Chamber, designated by the President of the Court of First Instance, from among the Judges of each of the other Chambers, in the order of precedence of those Judges within their Chambers according to seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, in a rota applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected.

Plenary session

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure, that where, following the designation of an Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota established in advance, applied during the period of three years for which the Presidents of the Chambers composed of five Judges are elected, in accordance with which the President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in reverse order to the order in which the Judges rank according to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it is the Judge ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.

Designation of the Judge replacing the President of the Court of First Instance as the Judge hearing applications for interim measures

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance decided, in accordance with Article 106 of the Rules of Procedure, to designate Judge García-Valdecasas to replace the President of the Court of First Instance for the purpose of deciding applications for interim measures where the latter is absent or prevented from dealing with them, in respect of the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2007.

Criteria for assigning cases to Chambers

On 5 July 2006 the Court of First Instance laid down criteria as follows for the assignment of cases to the Chambers for the period from 1 October 2006 to 31 August 2006, in accordance with Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure:

| 1. | Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Cases shall be assigned, as soon as applications have been lodged and without prejudice to any subsequent application of Articles 14 and 51 of the Rules of Procedure, to Chambers of three Judges.

| 2. | Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas, namely:






  — | for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Cases shall be allocated to the Chambers in turn, in accordance with the date on which they are registered at the Registry, following three separate rotas, namely:

—

for cases concerning application of the competition rules applicable to undertakings, the rules on State aid and the rules on trade protection measures;

| — | for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

for cases concerning the intellectual property rights referred to in Article 130(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

| — | for all other cases. |
| --- | --- |

—

for all other cases.

In applying those rotas, the First Chamber shall not be taken into consideration at each fifth turn.

The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate from the rotas on the ground that cases are related or with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/15

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — UFEX and Others v Commission

(Case T-613/97) (1)

(State aid - Postal sector - Public undertaking entrusted with a service of general economic interest - Logistical and commercial assistance provided to a subsidiary not operating in a reserved sector - Appeal - Referral of a case back to the Court of First Instance)

(2006/C 190/25)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Union française de l'express (UFEX) (Roissy-en-France, France), DHL International SA (Roissy-en-France), Federal express international (France) SNC (Gennevilliers, France) and CRIE SA (Asnières, France) (represented by É. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by G. Rozet and D. Triantafyllou, Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: French Republic (represented by G. de Bergues, R. Abraham and F. Million, Agents), Chronopost SA (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France) (represented by V. Bouaziz Torron and D. Berlin, lawyers) and La Poste (Paris, France) (represented by H. Lehman, lawyer)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost (OJ 1998 L 164, p. 37)

Operative part of the order

| 1. | Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost is annulled in so far as that decision finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Commission Decision 98/365/EC of 1 October 1997 concerning alleged State aid granted by France to SFMI-Chronopost is annulled in so far as that decision finds that neither the logistical and commercial assistance provided by La Poste to its subsidiary, SFMI-Chronopost, nor the transfer of Postadex constitute State aid to SFMI-Chronopost;

| 2. | The Commission shall bear its own costs and 75 % of the applicants' costs, apart from those caused by the interventions, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Commission shall bear its own costs and 75 % of the applicants' costs, apart from those caused by the interventions, before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

| 3. | The applicants shall bear the remainder of their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice; |
| --- | --- |

3.

The applicants shall bear the remainder of their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice;

| 4. | The French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste shall bear their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste shall bear their own costs before the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice.

---

(1)  OJ C 72, 7.3.1998

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 June 2006 — Österreichische Postsparkasse and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft v Commission

(Joined Cases T-213/01 and T-214/01) (1)

(Action for annulment - Competition - Regulation No 17 - Regulation (EC) No 2842/98 - Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC - Hearing Officer - Measure having binding legal effects - Admissibility - Legitimate interest - Standing of applicant or complainant - Client final buyer of goods or services - Access to statements of objections - Confidential information - Sufficient interest)

(2006/C 190/26)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Österreichische Postsparkasse AG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: initially M. Klusmann, F. Wiemer and A. Reidlinger, then H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyers) and Bank für Arbeit und Wirtschaft AG (Vienna) (represented by: H.-J. Niemeyer, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Rating, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the decisions of the Hearing Officer of 9 August 2001 and 25 July 2001, respectively, to disclose to an Austrian political party (the Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) the non-confidential versions of the statements of objections relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC concerning the fixing of banking tariffs (COMP/36.571-Österreische Banken)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the actions.

| 2. | Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to pay two thirds of the costs of the main proceedings and the whole of the costs of the interlocutory proceedings.

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay one third of the costs of the main proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 24.11.2001.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/16

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 June 2006 — Girardot v Commission

(Case T-10/02) (1)

(Staff case - Members of the temporary staff - Illegal rejection of candidature - Annulment - Reinstatement of the situation existing prior to the illegality - Fair financial compensation - Loss of the opportunity to take up a vacant post - Equitable assessment)

(2006/C 190/27)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Marie-Claude Girardot (L'Haÿ-les-Roses, France) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and É. Schietere de Lophem, lawyers )

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: initially F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, L. Lozana-Palacios and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, then F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents)

Re:

Setting of the amount of fair financial compensation payable by the Commission to Ms Girardot pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission (ECR-SC I-A-109 and II-483)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets the amount of financial compensation payable by the Commission to Ms Marie-Claude Girardot pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission at EUR 92 785, together with interest payable from 6 September 2004, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets the amount of financial compensation payable by the Commission to Ms Marie-Claude Girardot pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 31 March 2004 in Case T-10/02 Girardot v Commission at EUR 92 785, together with interest payable from 6 September 2004, at the rate set by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations, plus two percentage points;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 13.3.2002.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 June 2006 — Danzer v Council

(Case T-47/02) (1)

(Company law - Directives 68/151/EEC and 78/660/EEC - Disclosure of annual accounts - Protection of business secrets - Breach of fundamental rights - Legal basis - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 190/28)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Manfred Danzer and Hannelore Danzer (Linz, Austria) (represented by: initially by J. Hintermayr, M. Krüger, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr and P. Burgstaller, and subsequently by J. Hintermayr, F. Haunschmidt, G. Minichmayr, P. Burgstaller, G. Tusek, T. Riedler and C. Hadeyer, lawyers)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Giorgi Fort and M. Bauer, Agents)

Re:

Application, first, for compensation under Article 288 EC in respect of damage allegedly suffered by the applicants due to the obligation to disclose certain information in the annual accounts of the companies of which they are managers under Article 2(1)(f) of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on coordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty (subsequently the second paragraph of Article 58 of the EC Treaty, now the second paragraph of Article 48 EC), with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41), and Article 47 of Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC of 25 July 1978 based on Article 54(3)(g) of the Treaty (subsequently Article 54(3)(g) of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 44(2)(g) EC) on the annual accounts of certain types of companies (OJ 1978 L 222, p. 11) and, second, for a declaration that the aforementioned provisions are invalid.

Operative part of the order:

The Court hereby:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the Council's costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicants to bear their own costs and to pay the Council's costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 109, 4.5.2002.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Inex SA v OHIM — Wiseman (Representation of a cowhide)

(Case T-153/03) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative mark consisting of a representation of a cowhide in black and white - Earlier national figurative trade mark comprising in part a representation of a cowhide in black and white - Distinctive character of an element of a trade mark - Absence of likelihood of confusion - Rejection of the opposition - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2006/C 190/29)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Inex SA (Bavegem, Belgium) (represented by: T. van Innis, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: initially, U. Pfleghar and G. Schneider, and subsequently, G. Schneider and A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Robert Wiseman & Sons Ltd (Glasgow, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Roughton, Barrister)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 4 February 2003 (Case R 106/2001-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Inex SA and Robert Wiseman & Sons Ltd.

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 171, 19.7.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Pérez-Díaz v Commission

(Case T-156/03) (1)

(Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on the reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2006/C 190/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Orlando Pérez-Diaz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: M.-A. Lucas, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, agents)

Re:

First, an action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-102/01 Pérez-Díaz v Commission (ECR-SC I-A-165 and II-871), and, second, a claim for compensation for the damage supposedly caused by the unlawfulness of that refusal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter his name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter his name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

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

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 19.7.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/18

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Atlantean Ltd v Commission

(Case T-192/03) (1)

(Fishing - Multiannual guidance programmes - Request to increase the objectives on safety grounds - Decision 97/413/EC - Refusal of the Commission - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Competence of the Commission)

(2006/C 190/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Atlantean Ltd (Killybegs, (Ireland)) (represented by: initially G. Hogan SC, E. Regan SC and A. Hussey, Solicitor, then G. Hogan SC, E. Regan SC and M. Fraser, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and B. Doherty, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan and C. O'Toole, Agents, and by D. Conlan Smyth, Barrister]

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as that decision rejects the request to increase the capacity of the vessel Atlantean

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the applicant's vessel Atlantean; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the applicant's vessel Atlantean;

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

2.

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

| 3. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 184, 2.8.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 June 2006 — Boyle and Others v Commission

(Joined Cases T-218/03 to T-240/03) (1)

(Fishing - Multiannual guidance programmes - Requests to increase the objectives on safety grounds - Decision 97/413/EC - Refusal of the Commission - Actions for annulment - Admissibility - Competence of the Commission)

(2006/C 190/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Cathal Boyle (Killybegs, Ireland) and the other 22 applicants whose names are set out in the annex to the judgment (represented by: P. Gallagher SC, A. Collins SC and D. Barry, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Braun and B. Doherty, Agents)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Ireland [represented by: D. O'Hagan and C. O'Toole, Agents, and by D. Conlan Smyth, Barrister]

Re:

Annulment of Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall (OJ 2003 L 90, p. 48), in so far as it rejects the applicants' request to increase the capacity of their vessels

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the applications lodged by Thomas Faherty (T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (T-226/03), Larry Murphy (T-236/03) and O'Neill Fishing Co. Ltd (T-239/03); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the applications lodged by Thomas Faherty (T-224/03), Ocean Trawlers Ltd (T-226/03), Larry Murphy (T-236/03) and O'Neill Fishing Co. Ltd (T-239/03);

| 2. | Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the vessels of the other applicants; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Annuls Commission Decision 2003/245/EC of 4 April 2003 on the requests received by the Commission to increase MAGP IV objectives to take into account improvements on safety, navigation at sea, hygiene, product quality and working conditions for vessels of more than 12 m in length overall in so far as it applies to the vessels of the other applicants;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants referred to in paragraph 2; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the applicants referred to in paragraph 2;

| 4. | Order the applicants referred to in paragraph 1 to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

4.

Order the applicants referred to in paragraph 1 to bear their own costs;

| 5. | Orders Ireland to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

5.

Orders Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 239, 4.10.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/19

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 June 2006 — Bachotet v Commission

(Case T-400/03) (1)

(Officials - Annulment of the refusal to enter a candidate on a reserve list of temporary staff - Candidate's submission to a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment annulling the refusal - Second refusal of entry - Action for annulment)

(2006/C 190/33)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sophie Bachotet (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. serepa-Lacombe and L. Lozano Palacios, agents)

Re:

Action for annulment of the refusal by the committee responsible for selection procedure COM/R/A/01/1999 to enter the applicant's name on the reserve list of temporary staff, following a new oral test held in order to comply with the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 24 September 2002 in Case T-182/01 Bachotet v Commission (not published in the European Court Reports)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter her name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the selection committee, contained in the letter of 21 January 2003 notified to the applicant, not to enter her name on the reserve list resulting from selection procedure COM/R/01/1999;

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

2.

Orders the Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 7.2.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-251/04) (1)

(EAGGF - Expenditure excluded from Community financing - Public storage of rice - Force majeure - Processed fruit and vegetable products - Assistance to the needy - Restructuring programme in the fruit and vegetables sector - Flat-rate corrections - Time-limit of 24 months)

(2006/C 190/34)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: V. Kontolaimos and I. Chalkias, Agents)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. Condou-Durande, Agent, assisted by N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Re:

Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/457/EC of 29 April 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as it excludes certain expenditure by the Hellenic Republic in the sectors of fruit and vegetables and public storage

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

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

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 28.8.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/20

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 31 May 2006 — Carrs Paper Ltd v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-123/02) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Proceedings for the liquidation of the applicant - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 190/35)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Carrs Paper Ltd (Shirley, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Grayston and A. Bywater, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and A. Whelan, acting as Agents, and by M. van der Woude and V. Landes, lawyers)

Re:

Applicant for annulment, or in the alternative, for a reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — carbonless paper) (OJ 2004 L 115, p.1)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the present action.

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

2.

The applicant is to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 169, 13.7.2002.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 June 2006 — Achaiber Sing v Commission

(Case T-4/04) (1)

(Non-contractual liability of the Community - Animal health - Requirements for the import of birds - Agreement on the application of health and phyto-sanitary measures - Compensation for damage - Partial inadmissibility - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2006/C 190/36)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: R.K. Achaiber Sing (Leiden, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Wilgers and J. van Duin, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: P. Kuijper, T. van Rijn and M. van Heezik, Agents)

Re:

Compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicant owing to the application of Commission Decision 2000/666/EC of 16 October 2000 laying down the animal health requirements and the veterinary certification for the import of birds, other than poultry and the conditions for quarantine (OJ 2000 L 278, p. 26)

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | The applicant shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the plea of inadmissibility

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 6.3.2004.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN)

(Case T-487/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 190/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Falcon Sporting Goods AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Weigell, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004 (Case R 176/2004-2) concerning the refusal to register the word mark ‘BIN LADIN’

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/21

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 19 May 2006 — Falcon Sporting Goods v OHIM (BIN LADIN)

(Case T-488/04) (1)

(Community trade mark - Refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 190/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Falcon Sporting Goods AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Weigell, lawyer)

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

Re:

Action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 September 2004 (Case R 176/2004-2) concerning the refusal to register the word mark ‘BIN LADIN’

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

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

2.

The applicant shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

---

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Nikolaos Theofilopoulos v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-91/06)

(2006/C 190/39)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Nikolaos Theofilopoulos (Athens, Greece) (represented by: P. Miliarakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | order the Commission to return letters of guarantee Nos 81928/6.12.1995, 819837/6.12.1995, 819838/6.12.1995, 822611/22.12.1995 and 830671/17.3.1996 of the Tamio Sintaxion Mikhanikon and Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon (TSMEDE); |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to return letters of guarantee Nos 81928/6.12.1995, 819837/6.12.1995, 819838/6.12.1995, 822611/22.12.1995 and 830671/17.3.1996 of the Tamio Sintaxion Mikhanikon and Ergolipton Dimosion Ergon (TSMEDE);

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 202 697,72 or, in the alternative, EUR 199 219,69 in respect of material damage arising up to February 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 202 697,72 or, in the alternative, EUR 199 219,69 in respect of material damage arising up to February 2006;

| — | order the Commission to pay EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay EUR 100 000 in respect of non-material damage;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant states that, following his own guarantee, the five letters of guarantee were issued by TSMEDE for the companies ‘Impetus EPE’ and ‘Impetus AEVE’, on which he is President and Managing Director. Those letters of guarantee were lodged by the above companies with the Commission in connection with contracts which they had entered into with the Commission. The applicant maintains that the Commission unlawfully and culpably refused to return those letters of guarantee, although it had no reason to retain them. He considers that that unlawful and culpable conduct of the Commission's bodies justifies this application, since he himself is required to pay TSMEDE the amounts in respect of which those letters were issued.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/22

---

Action brought on 5 April 2006 — INET ELLAS — ELEKTRONIKI IPIRESIA PLIROFORION E.P.E. v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-107/06)

(2006/C 190/40)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: INET HELLAS — ELEKTRONIKI IPIRESIA PLIROFORION E.P.E. (Athens, Greece) (represented by: B. Khatzopoulos, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

| — | annul European Commission document No. INFSO/A3/VS D(2006)703641/31.1.2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul European Commission document No. INFSO/A3/VS D(2006)703641/31.1.2006;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant maintains that the contested document is unlawful because it wrongly assumes that registration of the domain name co.eu. on the Web is prohibited by the rules of Community law. In fact, however, no Community provision prohibits registration of the domain name co.eu. To the contrary, Regulation No 40/94 requires its registration.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

---

Action brought on 22 May 2006 — SANOFI AVENTIS v OHIM — G.D. SEARLE (‘ATURION’)

(Case T -146/06)

(2006/C 190/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: SANOFI AVENTIS, S.A. (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Armijo Chavarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: G.D. SEARLE LLC

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 in Case R 227/2005-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 February 2006 in Case R 227/2005-1;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: G.D. SEARLE LLC.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ATURION’ for goods in Class 5 — application No1 662 311.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘URION’ for goods in Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, given that the marks in question may create a likelihood of confusion on the market.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/23

---

Action brought on 26 May 2006 — Marie Claire v OHIM — Marie Claire Album (MARIE CLAIRE)

(Case T -148/06)

(2006/C 190/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Marie Claire (Castellón, Spain) (represented by: T. Fernández Mateos and T. Marín Bataller, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Marie Claire Album SA.

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 March 2006 in Case R-530/2004-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 6 March 2006 in Case R-530/2004-2;

| — | declare, accordingly, that the Community trade mark applied for is not caught by the prohibitions in Article 8(5)CMR 40/94, since such provisions do not apply to this case; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare, accordingly, that the Community trade mark applied for is not caught by the prohibitions in Article 8(5)CMR 40/94, since such provisions do not apply to this case;

| — | declare that the Community trade mark applied for, No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’, does not take unfair advantage or is not detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier opposing mark without due cause; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Community trade mark applied for, No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’, does not take unfair advantage or is not detrimental to the distinctive character or the reputation of the earlier opposing mark without due cause;

| — | declare that the prohibitions in Article 8(1)(b) CMR 40/94 are not applicable to the Community trade mark applied for, as already held in both the decision of the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the prohibitions in Article 8(1)(b) CMR 40/94 are not applicable to the Community trade mark applied for, as already held in both the decision of the Opposition Division and the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

| — | allow registration of Community trade mark No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ in order to distinguish ‘Swimwear; lingerie and underwear’, in Class 25 of the International Classification, for the benefit of the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

allow registration of Community trade mark No 77.834 ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ in order to distinguish ‘Swimwear; lingerie and underwear’, in Class 25 of the International Classification, for the benefit of the applicant;

| — | order OHIM to pay the costs together with any party which appears as a third party to these proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to pay the costs together with any party which appears as a third party to these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Marie Claire.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ for goods in Class 25 — application No 2 389 567.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Marie Claire Album SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international word and figurative marks ‘MARIE CLAIRE’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 3, 14, 16, 18, 20-22, 24-28, 41 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition Division decision annulled and opposition upheld.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/24

---

Action brought on 14 June 2006 — Tomra Systems and Others v Commission

(Case T-155/06)

(2006/C 190/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Tomra Systems ASA (Asker, Norway), Tomra Europe AS (Asker, Norway), Tomra Systems BV (Apeldoorn, Netherlands), Tomra Systems GmbH (Hilden, Germany), Tomra Butikksystemer AS (Asker, Norway), Tomra Systems AB (Sollentuna, Sweden), Tomra Leergutsysteme GmbH (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: A. Ryan, Solicitor, J. Midthjell, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Commission Decision COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra of 29 March 2006 in its entirety; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Commission Decision COMP/E-1/38.113 — Prokent/Tomra of 29 March 2006 in its entirety; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine.

| — | In the alternative, annul or reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 of the abovementioned decision; and |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative, annul or reduce substantially the amount of the fine imposed by Article 2 of the abovementioned decision; and

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicants to post a bank guarantee for its obligation to pay the fine.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are part of the Tomra group, which is active in the area of collecting used beverage containers mainly through the supply of reverse vending machines (RVMs) and related products and services.

In 2001 the Commission received a complaint denouncing an abuse of a dominant position on the part of the applicants preventing the complainant's access to the market.

By the contested decision, the Commission concluded that the applicants infringed Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement in the period 1998-2002 by implementing an exclusionary strategy in the national reverse vending machines markets in Austria, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden, involving exclusivity agreements, individualised quantity commitments and individualised retroactive rebate schemes. The Commission imposed on the applicants a fine of 24 million EUR.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the Commission:

| — | used manifestly incorrect and unreliable evidence to prove that the group designed a strategy to foreclose competition and implemented that strategy by 49 agreements with its customers between 1998 and 2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

used manifestly incorrect and unreliable evidence to prove that the group designed a strategy to foreclose competition and implemented that strategy by 49 agreements with its customers between 1998 and 2002;

| — | committed manifest errors on its assessment on whether the agreements were capable of foreclosing competition and failure to state reasons, and on whether these agreement actually foreclosed competition; |
| --- | --- |

—

committed manifest errors on its assessment on whether the agreements were capable of foreclosing competition and failure to state reasons, and on whether these agreement actually foreclosed competition;

| — | committed a manifest error in law by holding exclusivity agreements, individualised quantity commitments and individualised retroactive rebates unlawful per se under Article 82 EC; |
| --- | --- |

—

committed a manifest error in law by holding exclusivity agreements, individualised quantity commitments and individualised retroactive rebates unlawful per se under Article 82 EC;

| — | committed a manifest error in concluding that non-binding quantity commitments can infringe Article 82 EC; and |
| --- | --- |

—

committed a manifest error in concluding that non-binding quantity commitments can infringe Article 82 EC; and

| — | breached the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination when it imposed the EUR 24 million fine on the applicants. |
| --- | --- |

—

breached the principles of proportionality and non-discrimination when it imposed the EUR 24 million fine on the applicants.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/24

---

Action brought on 9 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-157/06)

(2006/C 190/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 2984 of 31 March 2006 concerning the PEP Sicilia Programme (claim for payment No 2005 0601) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of payments on account made in the contex of aid schemes’, together with all connected and prior acts. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the European Commission's Memorandum No 2984 of 31 March 2006 concerning the PEP Sicilia Programme (claim for payment No 2005 0601) containing a request to ‘comply with the conditions set out in Commissioner Barnier's letter of 29 July 2003 as to the eligibility of payments on account made in the contex of aid schemes’, together with all connected and prior acts.

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission. (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/25

---

Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

(Case T-158/06)

(2006/C 190/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adobe Systems Inc. (San Jose, USA) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42.

| — | Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — application No 3 795 011

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and failure to take prior national registrations into account.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/25

---

Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

(Case T-159/06)

(2006/C 190/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Estancia Piedra SL (Toro, Spain) (represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franciscan Vineyards Inc. (St. Helena, USA)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 363/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 363/2005-2);

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’ for services in class 35 (information and consultancy services in relation to retailing via worldwide computer networks; import-export of wines) — Community trade mark No 2 127 868

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Franciscan Vineyards Inc.

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘ESTANCIA’ for products in classes 29, 30 and 33 (meat, fish, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages ...)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Firstly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it was concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’. Secondly, infringement of the procedural requirements since the Board of Appeal accepted, according to the applicant, an invalid and late filed authorisation from Franciscan Vineyards for their representatives and illegitimately purported to extend the time-limit for Franciscan Vineyards to file the authorisation.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/26

---

Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

(Case T-160/06)

(2006/C 190/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Estancia Piedra SL (Toro, Spain) (represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franciscan Vineyards Inc. (St. Helena, USA)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 361/2005-2); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 361/2005-2);

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’ for products in class 33 (Alcoholic beverages) — Community trade mark No 1 894 831

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Franciscan Vineyards Inc.

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘ESTANCIA’ for products in classes 29, 30 and 33 (meat, fish, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages ...)

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Firstly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it was concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’. Secondly, infringement of the procedural requirements since the Board of Appeal accepted, according to the applicant, an invalid and late filed authorisation from Franciscan Vineyards for their representatives and illegitimately extended the time limit for Franciscan Vineyards to file the authorisation.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/26

---

Action brought on 28 June 2006 — BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others v Commission

(Case T-163/06)

(2006/C 190/48)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: BA.LA. di Lanciotti V. & C. S.A.S. and Others (represented by: P.M. Tabellini, G. Celona, E. Bidoggia and E.M. Tabellini)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicants

| — | that the Court of First Instance should declare admissible the action with regard to all the applicants |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Court of First Instance should declare admissible the action with regard to all the applicants

| — | that, on the merits, the Court should annul Article 1(1) and (2)(b) of and recitals 28 to 31 and 250 to 252 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, and any preliminary or connected measure, in so far as they define children's footwear and exclude it from being subject to the anti-dumping duty |
| --- | --- |

—

that, on the merits, the Court should annul Article 1(1) and (2)(b) of and recitals 28 to 31 and 250 to 252 in the preamble to Commission Regulation (EC) No 553/2006 of 23 March 2006 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam, and any preliminary or connected measure, in so far as they define children's footwear and exclude it from being subject to the anti-dumping duty

| — | that the Court should order the defendant to pay all the applicants' costs |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Court should order the defendant to pay all the applicants' costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in this case are all manufacturers, either exclusively or chiefly, of children's footwear. They are situated so close to one another as to form a ‘footwear district’ on the boundary between the provinces of Fermo and Macerata.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead:

| — | misuse of powers, in that the defendant had recourse to a procedure introduced and strictly regulated by a Basic Regulation implementing an international agreement, in order to pursue vaguely social ends (recitals 250 to 252) that call for the exclusion from the notion of Community industry of a large proportion of products which are not merely similar but actually identical; |
| --- | --- |

—

misuse of powers, in that the defendant had recourse to a procedure introduced and strictly regulated by a Basic Regulation implementing an international agreement, in order to pursue vaguely social ends (recitals 250 to 252) that call for the exclusion from the notion of Community industry of a large proportion of products which are not merely similar but actually identical;

| — | manifest errors of fact, in relation to the identification of such footwear with insoles of less than 24 centimetres with children's footwear, to the physical and technical features of children's footwear, and also the description of the sector concerned, to the alleged financial cost to families and to the real damage suffered by the children's footwear industry; |
| --- | --- |

—

manifest errors of fact, in relation to the identification of such footwear with insoles of less than 24 centimetres with children's footwear, to the physical and technical features of children's footwear, and also the description of the sector concerned, to the alleged financial cost to families and to the real damage suffered by the children's footwear industry;

| — | infringement of Council Decision 87/369 of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System in so far as the contested regulation uses the measurement of the insole as a ground for distinguishing between one kind of footwear and another. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of Council Decision 87/369 of 7 April 1987 concerning the conclusion of the International Convention on the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System in so far as the contested regulation uses the measurement of the insole as a ground for distinguishing between one kind of footwear and another.

Finally, the applicants allege breach of the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/27

---

Action brought on 21 June 2006 — ColArt/Americas v OHIM (BASICS)

(Case T-164/06)

(2006/C 190/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ColArt Americas, Inc (Piscataway, USA) (represented by: E. Soler Borda, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 April 2006 concerning the Trade mark application BASICS No 002433613 (Case R 788/2005-4) in whole; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for the Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 7 April 2006 concerning the Trade mark application BASICS No 002433613 (Case R 788/2005-4) in whole;

| — | in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the following products: colouring matters in the nature of acrylic paints, artists' varnishes. |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, annul the contested decision in so far as it concerns the following products: colouring matters in the nature of acrylic paints, artists' varnishes.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BASICS’ for goods in class 2 — application No 2 433 613

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) and Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the word ‘BASICS’ is not a familiar expression in the English language with respect to the goods applied for and it is not of such nature as to give the consumers a clear understanding with respect to the products covered by the application. In any case, the trade mark applied for has acquired distinctiveness through use.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/27

---

Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Fiorucci v OHIM — EDWIN (word mark ‘Elio Fiorucci’)

(Case T-165/06)

(2006/C 190/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Elio Fiorucci (represented by: Adriano Vanzetti, Giulio Sironi and Francesco Rossi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: EDWIN CO LTD

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 in Case R 238/2005-1 and declare Community trade mark No 000709006 ‘Elio Fiorucci’, filed on 23 December 1997 and registered on 6 April 1999, is invalid or, in the alternative, revoked; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 April 2006 in Case R 238/2005-1 and declare Community trade mark No 000709006 ‘Elio Fiorucci’, filed on 23 December 1997 and registered on 6 April 1999, is invalid or, in the alternative, revoked;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: word mark ‘Elio Fiorucci’ (application for registration No 709.006 for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25).

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: EDWIN CO. LTD.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: the applicant.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: right to the use of his own name.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: application for declaration of invalidity granted.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal granted and application for declaration of invalidity rejected.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 52(2)(a), 12(a) and 50(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark in the light of, respectively, Articles 8(3), 21(1)(a), and 26(1)(b) of the Italian Industrial Property Code.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/28

---

Action brought on 28 June 2006 — PowderJect Research v OHIM (POWDERMED)

(Case T-166/06)

(2006/C 190/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: PowderJect Research Ltd (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Bryson, Barrister, P. Brownlow, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 April 2006, relating to the applicant's Community trade mark application No 4202743 for POWERMED in classes 5, 10 and 42; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 April 2006, relating to the applicant's Community trade mark application No 4202743 for POWERMED in classes 5, 10 and 42;

| — | award costs in favour of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

award costs in favour of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POWDERMED’ for goods and services in classes 5, 10 and 42 — application No 4 202 743

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. The Board of Appeal erred in treating the trade mark as being composed of two English words in common usage and it gave no or insufficient consideration to the structure of the trade mark applied for by not taking into account that the trade mark would at first sight suggest the past tense of a verb by reason of its closing letters ‘...ed’ and that it would not be immediately apparent to the relevant public that the trade mark could be dissected into ‘powder’ and ‘med’.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/28

---

Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Italian Republic v Commission

(Case T-168/06)

(2006/C 190/52)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvocato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul Memorandum No 03232 of 7 April 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 03232 of 7 April 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

| — | annul Memorandum No 03903 of 5 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Ob. 2 Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 03903 of 5 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref SPD Ob. 2 Lazio 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009);

| — | annul Memorandum No 04240 of 18 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014), |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 04240 of 18 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014),

| — | annul Memorandum No 04241 of 18 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification and declaration of intermediate expenses and requests for payment. Ref. SPD Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 04241 of 18 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning certification and declaration of intermediate expenses and requests for payment. Ref. SPD Veneto Ob. 2 2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 005);

| — | annul Memorandum No 04468 of 29 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 010); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Memorandum No 04468 of 29 May 2006 of the European Commission, Directorate-General for Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Malta and the Netherlands — concerning payments made by the Commission which differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 010);

| — | annul all related and prior measures and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all related and prior measures and, consequently, order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission. (1)

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004, p. 55.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

---

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Expasa v OHIM — Juan Gallardo Blanco (figurative mark ‘H’)

(Case T-172/06)

(2006/C 190/53)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Expasa, Agricultura y Ganadería, S.A. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.C. Valle Valiente)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Juan Gallardo Blanco

Form of order sought

| — | Grant the application; |
| --- | --- |

—

Grant the application;

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

—

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Figurative mark ‘H’ (letter written in bold type and with a curve in the horizontal stroke) (application for registration No 1 255 751, for goods in Class 31).

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Juan Gallardo Blanco.

Trade mark right of applicant for the declaration: Spanish figurative mark No 198 648‘H’ (letter written in bold type, slightly inclined, with a curve in the horizontal stroke and crossed by a trail in the colours sky blue and deep red), for goods in Class 31 (‘livestock breeding of all kinds, except horses’).

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of nullity of the Community trade mark in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 40(2) and 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/29

---

Action brought on 27 June 2006 — Inalca and Cremonini v Commission

(Case T-174/06)

(2006/C 190/54)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Inalca and Cremonini (Modena, Italy) (represented by: Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Declare that the Commission is liable for non-contractual damages; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare that the Commission is liable for non-contractual damages;

| — | declare that the applicants have suffered damage, assessed at EUR 2 861 000; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the applicants have suffered damage, assessed at EUR 2 861 000;

| — | order the Commission to make good such damage together with compensatory interest and interest on any arrears; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to make good such damage together with compensatory interest and interest on any arrears;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks compensation for loss allegedly suffered by the applicant companies as a result of the adoption of the letter of 6 July 1998 in which UCLAF communicated to the Italian authorities the findings — which the applicants consider wholly inaccurate — of its investigation into alleged irregularities in the export, with refunds, of beef and veal to Jordan and made allegations which also had criminal-law implications against both companies and their directors.

In support of their claims, the applicants argue:

| — | infringement of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 729/70 in that, firstly, the inspection carried out by UCLAF in Jordan is open to challenge since it exceeded the limits of its supervisory powers, which are confined to the territory of the Member States, and, secondly, UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare and conduct inspections and supervision with the prior agreement of the Member States and in the presence of the representatives of all the national authorities concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

infringement of the second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 729/70 in that, firstly, the inspection carried out by UCLAF in Jordan is open to challenge since it exceeded the limits of its supervisory powers, which are confined to the territory of the Member States, and, secondly, UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare and conduct inspections and supervision with the prior agreement of the Member States and in the presence of the representatives of all the national authorities concerned.

| — | Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and of Article 4 of Regulation No 2185/96 in that UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare on-the-spot checks and inspections in close collaboration with the Member States and to inform the competent national authorities before carrying out such checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of the second subparagraph of Article 9(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and of Article 4 of Regulation No 2185/96 in that UCLAF breached the obligation to prepare on-the-spot checks and inspections in close collaboration with the Member States and to inform the competent national authorities before carrying out such checks.

| — | Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 3665/87 in that UCLAF disregarded the probative value recognised and conferred by that regulation on a series of expressly listed documents and arbitrarily gave preference to a series of other documents, undermining the principle of legal certainty and the transparency of checks. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 18 of Regulation No 3665/87 in that UCLAF disregarded the probative value recognised and conferred by that regulation on a series of expressly listed documents and arbitrarily gave preference to a series of other documents, undermining the principle of legal certainty and the transparency of checks.

The applicants also plead infringement of the principles of good administration, diligence and proportionality and breach of professional secrecy.

Lastly, the applicants state that, even if UCLAF's conduct may not be open to censure, UCLAF is none the less liable for causing the applicants loss. The latter could not reasonably foresee, and therefore prevent, the damage that would be caused to them by an investigation which, they assert, proved to be wholly erroneous.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/30

---

Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Sviluppo Italia Basilicata v Commission

(Case T-176/06)

(2006/C 190/55)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Sviluppo Italia Basilicata S.p.A. (Potenza, Italy) (represented by: Francesco Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the applicant

| — | that the Court of First Instance should annul Decision C(2006) of the European Commission of 20 April 2006 |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Court of First Instance should annul Decision C(2006) of the European Commission of 20 April 2006

| — | that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs |
| --- | --- |

—

that the Court should order the Commission to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments

The decision challenged in this action has brought about a considerable financial correction in the assistance of EUR 5 600 000 granted by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to the overall subsidy BIC Basilicata in order to put into action measures to encourage small and medium-sized undertakings operating in the Regione Basilicata, in the sphere of the Community framework of support for the Objective 1 regions in Italy. In particular, measure 2 of the overall subsidy provided for the setting up of a venture capital fund for the distribution of financial assistance in the shape of holdings of share capital, shareholders' loans and convertible debenture stock in favour of undertakings situated in Basilicata or intending to set up in that region.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

| — | that the contested decision is completely wanting any legal and factual grounds, in so far as the defendant considers, in point of fact, that there has in the circumstances been no actual fall in the assistance provided by the Fund, in that less than 3 % of the ERDF's funds has been used to take up shares in undertakings (requirement of usefulness). On this head, the applicant maintains that that condition was not provided for either by the rules applicable to the circumstances of the case, contained in the decision awarding the aid, or by the general rules on structural funds. As a result, the Commission could not lawfully conclude that there existed irregularities within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88, relying on the requirement of usefulness |
| --- | --- |

—

that the contested decision is completely wanting any legal and factual grounds, in so far as the defendant considers, in point of fact, that there has in the circumstances been no actual fall in the assistance provided by the Fund, in that less than 3 % of the ERDF's funds has been used to take up shares in undertakings (requirement of usefulness). On this head, the applicant maintains that that condition was not provided for either by the rules applicable to the circumstances of the case, contained in the decision awarding the aid, or by the general rules on structural funds. As a result, the Commission could not lawfully conclude that there existed irregularities within the meaning of Article 24 of Regulation No 4253/88, relying on the requirement of usefulness

| — | contravention of Decision 97/322/EC, for want of taking into consideration and misinterpretation of paragraph C of data-sheet 19. Here, the applicant considers that the defendant has failed to take into account, in the contested decision, on the one hand, the distinction between ‘commitment’ and ‘expenditure’ and, on the other, the provisions in the data-sheet relating to the duration of the Fund, and also the provisions laid down in the draft overall subsidy which formed an integral part of that decision approving the aid, and determined the actual duration of that particular assistance at ten years |
| --- | --- |

—

contravention of Decision 97/322/EC, for want of taking into consideration and misinterpretation of paragraph C of data-sheet 19. Here, the applicant considers that the defendant has failed to take into account, in the contested decision, on the one hand, the distinction between ‘commitment’ and ‘expenditure’ and, on the other, the provisions in the data-sheet relating to the duration of the Fund, and also the provisions laid down in the draft overall subsidy which formed an integral part of that decision approving the aid, and determined the actual duration of that particular assistance at ten years

| — | failure to comply with the procedures laid down by the Agreement, Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 or Article 26 of Regulation No 2082/93 in the finding of irregularities. |
| --- | --- |

—

failure to comply with the procedures laid down by the Agreement, Article 25 of Regulation No 4253/88 or Article 26 of Regulation No 2082/93 in the finding of irregularities.

The applicant, at the end of its application, also alleges breach of the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations, of legal certainty, of proportionality and of the requirement to state reasons.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/31

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 14 June 2006 — Muswellbrook v OHIM-Nike (NIKE)

(Case T-362/02, T-363/02, T-364/02, T-365/02 and T-366/02) (1)

(2006/C 190/56)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 22.2.2003.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/31

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 June 2006 — Deutsche Telekom v OHIM-PCS Systemtechnik (T-PCS)

(Case T -157/05) (1)

(2006/C 190/57)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 171, 9.7.2005.

---

EUROPEAN UNION CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Sanchez Ferriz v Commission

(Case F-19/05) (1)

(Officials - Career Development Report - Assessment procedure for 2003)

(2006/C 190/58)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carlos Sanchez Ferriz (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bouneou and F. Frabetti, lawyers, then only F. Frabetti)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and L. Lozano Palacios, Agents)

Re:

Annulment of the assessment procedure for 2003 in relation to the applicant, or, in the alternative, annulment of the applicant's Career Development Report for 2003

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155 of 25.06.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-153/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/32

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Le Maire v Commission

(Case F-27/05) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Refusal to grant the daily subsistence allowances)

(2006/C 190/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Viviane Le Maire (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: G. Bournéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the right to the daily subsistence allowances provided for in Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities, following her entry into service on 16 February 2004

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action as inadmissible.

| 2. | Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and half of the costs of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear its own costs and half of the costs of the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 182 of 23.07.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-191/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 28 June 2006 –Beau v Commission

(Case F-39/05) (1)

(Occupational disease - Refusal to recognise the occupational origin of the applicant's disease)

(2006/C 190/60)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Yolande Beau (Paris, France) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and K. Herrmann, agents, assisted by F. Longfils, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 3 August 2004 in which the Commission of the European Communities refused to accede to the request for recognition of the occupational origin of the applicant's disease and charging to her the fees and incidental costs of the doctor nominated by her and half of the fees and incidental costs of the third doctor

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each of the parties to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 205 of 20.08.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-215/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 June 2006 — Grünheid v Commission

(Case F-101/05) (1)

(Officials - Time-limit for complaint - Pay slip - Admissibility - Appointment - Classification in the higher career grad e - Articles 25, 26 and 31(2) of the Staff Regulations)

(2006/C 190/61)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sabine Grünheid (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Ch. Berardis-Kayser and K. Herrmann, Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the decision of 6 October 2004 by which the Commission established the applicant in her post as an official, inasmuch as that decision incorporates a classification of grade A*8, and the decision of 6 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's complaint

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 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 10 of 14.01.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-388/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/33

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 29 June 2006 — Chassagne v Commission

(Case F-11/05) (1)

(Officials - Remuneration - Annual travel expenses - Provisions applicable before 1 May 2004 to officials originating from a French Overseas Department - Manifestly inadmissible)

(2006/C 190/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Olivier Chassagne (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Berscheid and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of the Commission of the European Communities refusing the applicant the benefit of Article 8(1) to (3) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations relating to the rules on reimbursement of annual travel expenses, in the version in force before 1 May 2004, and secondly, compensation for the damage which the applicant considers to have suffered as a result of that refusal

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

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

2.

Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 115 of 14.5.2006 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-123/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/34

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 30 June 2006 — Ott and Others v Commission

(Case F-87/05) (1)

(Officials - Promotion for 2004 - Non-inclusion on the list of officials promoted - Article 111 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance - Action, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded )

(2006/C 190/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Martial Ott (Oberanven, Luxembourg), Fernando Lopez Tola (Luxembourg, Luxembourg), Francis Weiler (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: G. Bounéou and F. Frabetti, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission (represented by: C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, Agents)

Re:

First, annulment of the decision of 30 November 2004, published in Administrative Notice No 130 2004 of 30 November 2004, in which the Commission of the European Communities set out the list of officials promoted in 2004, since that list does not include the names of the applicants, and, secondly, in the alternative, annulment of the allocation of promotion points for 2004.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed, in part, as manifestly inadmissible and, in part, as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed, in part, as manifestly inadmissible and, in part, as manifestly unfounded.

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

2.

Each of the parties shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 315 of 10.12.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-349/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/34

---

Action brought on 21 April 2006 — Pimlott v Europol

(Case F-52/06)

(2006/C 190/64)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Mike Pimlott (Porchester, Hampshire, United Kingdom) (represented by: D.C. Coppens, lawyer)

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Europol's decision of 25 January 2006; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Europol's decision of 25 January 2006;

| — | Order Europol to renew the applicant's contract for a period of four years, from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to renew the applicant's contract for a period of four years, from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2010;

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

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, after having been first engaged by Europol on 1 January 2000 for a period initially fixed at four years, was employed from 1 January 2002 in a different position within the same bureau, under a new contract, which was to end on 31 December 2005.

In his action, the applicant challenges Europol's decision to renew that contract for two years only. He claims that, from the time he took up his new post under the new contract, Europol should have treated him not as a staff member to whom the authorities of his State of origin had granted unpaid special leave, but as a staff member who was no longer linked to those authorities. The distinction is relevant because, in the first case, the second indent of Article 6 of the Staff Regulations applicable to Europol employees, permitting renewal for a period of two years, is to be applied, while in the second case the third indent of that provision, permitting renewal for a period of four years, is to be applied.

The applicant submits that in 2002 he severed all ties with his original employer in the United Kingdom and that he was persuaded that the latter would amend the staff roll as a result. Even were it to be established that, in fact, the United Kingdom authorities did not remove him from that roll, the applicant claims that he himself should not in any event have to bear the consequences of that negligence.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/35

---

Action brought on 16 May 2006 — Balázs Dániel Simon v Court of Justice and Commission

(Case F-58/06)

(2006/C 190/65)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant(s): Balázs Dániel Simon (Brussels (Belgium)) (represented by: György Magyar, lawyer)

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Communities (represented by: Marc Schauss) and Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul in their entirety the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's request to be transferred, the decision of 27 September 2005 confirming that decision and the decision of 15 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the previous decisions, and also the decision of the appointing authority of the Commission of 3 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's appointment and the decision of 16 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul in their entirety the decision of the appointing authority of the Court of Justice of 21 July 2005 rejecting the applicant's request to be transferred, the decision of 27 September 2005 confirming that decision and the decision of 15 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against the previous decisions, and also the decision of the appointing authority of the Commission of 3 October 2005 rejecting the applicant's appointment and the decision of 16 February 2006 rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant against that decision;

| — | order the defendants to make good the harm caused to the applicant by the annulled decisions, and |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendants to make good the harm caused to the applicant by the annulled decisions, and

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

—

order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who is currently an official of the Commission, took up a post at the Court of Justice as a lawyer/linguist in Grade A*7 following competition EPSO/LA/12/03. He applied for a vacant post at the Commission and in May 2005 requested to be transferred. The Court rejected his request. The applicant again submitted his candidature to the Commission after the Commission had published a vacancy notice. Although the Commission chose the applicant for that post, it did not take the measures necessary for his transfer. Then, after the applicant left the service of the Court, the Commission engaged him as a successful candidate in competition EPSO/A/4/03 in Grade A*5 with effect from 2 March 2006.

The applicant seeks annulment of the decisions of 21 July 2005, 27 September 2005, 3 October 2005 and 16 February 2006; he relies on a failure to state reasons, a manifest error of assessment and a misuse of powers. The applicant also claims, in support of his application for annulment of those decisions, that there has been a breach of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 and of the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and non-discrimination. He seeks annulment of the Commission of the Court of 15 February 2006 on the basis of a manifest error of assessment.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/35

---

Action brought on 23 June 2006 — Andersson and Others v Commission

(Case F-69/06)

(2006/C 190/66)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Tommy Andersson (Brussels, Belgium) and Others (represented by: A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | annul the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' requests that the Appointing Authority adopt transitional measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005 and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and their acquired rights; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the individual decisions rejecting the applicants' requests that the Appointing Authority adopt transitional measures in order to ensure, in the context of the 2005 and subsequent promotion exercises, equal treatment and their acquired rights;

| — | 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 their action, the applicants put forward identical pleas to those put forward in Case F-47/06 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 154, 1.07.2006, p. 25.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

---

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Baele and Others v Commission

(Case F-70/06)

(2006/C 190/67)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Jan Baele (Beernem, Belgium) and others (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the refusal of the Appointing Authority to enter the applicants on the list of officials promoted to grades A*10 and B*10 under the 2005 promotion exercise such as those decisions implicitly result from Administrative Notice No 85-2005 of 23 November 2005;

| — | Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

Inform the Appointing Authority of the consequences of annulling the contested decisions, and in particular the reclassification of the applicants' grades to grade A*10 with retroactive effect from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 with retroactive effect from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

| — | In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate; |
| --- | --- |

—

In the alternative: (1) request the defendant to acknowledge that the applicants are eligible for promotion to grade A*10 or to grade B*10, as appropriate, on their next promotion and (2) order it to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the applicants as a result of not having been promoted to grade A*10 from 1 March 2005 or to grade B*10 from 1 January 2005, as appropriate;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of their action, the applicants put forward pleas identical to those put forward in Case F-45/06 (1).

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.06.2006, p. 39.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/36

---

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Lebedef-Caponi v Commission

(Case F-71/06)

(2006/C 190/68)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Maddalena Lebedef-Caponi (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004 |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the applicant's Career Development Report (CDR) for the period 1.1.2004 — 31.12.2004

| — | 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 her action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

| — | (1) infringement of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory and trade union staff-representatives, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’, |
| --- | --- |

—

(1) infringement of the General provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations on the statutory and trade union staff-representatives, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and of the rule ‘patere legem quam ipse fecisti’,

| — | (2) infringement of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary process and of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of powers, and infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the rights of the defence; |
| --- | --- |

—

(2) infringement of the principle of the prohibition of arbitrary process and of the principle of the prohibition of abuse of powers, and infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the rights of the defence;

| — | (3) infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials. |
| --- | --- |

—

(3) infringement of the duty to have regard for the welfare and/or interests of officials.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

---

Action brought on 30 June 2006 — Verheyden v Commission

(Case F-72/06)

(2006/C 190/69)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Luc Verheyden (Angera, Italy) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | order the production of the files concerning the applicant and sealed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and all the evidence and documents collected by OLAF against the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the production of the files concerning the applicant and sealed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and all the evidence and documents collected by OLAF against the applicant;

| — | order the production of the warrant of the OLAF inspectors; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the production of the warrant of the OLAF inspectors;

| — | order the production of any OLAF report concerning the investigation, whether or not sent to the Italian judicial authorities, including the final report of the internal investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the production of any OLAF report concerning the investigation, whether or not sent to the Italian judicial authorities, including the final report of the internal investigation;

| — | annul the investigation into the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the investigation into the applicant;

| — | annul the Note from OLAF notifying the investigation and providing information to the Italian judicial authorities and the despatch of the reports of the investigation to the Italian judicial authorities; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Note from OLAF notifying the investigation and providing information to the Italian judicial authorities and the despatch of the reports of the investigation to the Italian judicial authorities;

| — | annul the intermediate and final reports of the investigation; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the intermediate and final reports of the investigation;

| — | annul the implicit decisions rejecting the applicant's application and complaint; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the implicit decisions rejecting the applicant's application and complaint;

| — | annul all measures which may be taken subsequently to the bringing of this action following and/or relating to those decisions; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul all measures which may be taken subsequently to the bringing of this action following and/or relating to those decisions;

| — | order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay damages, assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 30 000, subject to increase and/or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant, in addition to putting forward very similar pleas to those raised in connection with Case F-5/05 (1) and raising the same pleas of unlawfulness as invoked in that case, also contends that Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (2) is unlawful as to the part which inserts Article 1 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-22/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

(2)  OJ L 124 of 27.4.2004, p. 1.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/37

---

Action brought on 3 July 2006 — Van Neyghem v Commission

(Case F-73/06)

(2006/C 190/70)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Kris Van Neyghem (Vissenaken, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues, A. Jaume and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the director of EPSO's decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in competition EPSO/A/19/04; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the director of EPSO's decision of 1 June 2005 not to admit the applicant to the oral test in competition EPSO/A/19/04;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro, by way of compensation for his non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant the symbolic sum of one euro, by way of compensation for his non-material damage;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to be left to the Tribunal's discretion, by way of compensation for his material damage, consisting of his loss of the opportunity of being appointed to a higher grade; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the applicant an amount to be left to the Tribunal's discretion, by way of compensation for his material damage, consisting of his loss of the opportunity of being appointed to a higher grade;

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

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant first claims infringement of the duty to give reasons and of the principle of equal treatment, in that neither the contested decision nor the administration's response to the applicant's complaint has enabled him to understand the mark he was awarded when the written test was marked and still less the value judgment made on his performance.

The applicant pleads, in addition, infringement of the principle of sound administration, inasmuch as the evaluation sheet for his written test is too general and imprecise and the copies of that test paper are not marked in any way.

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission

(Case F-35/05) (1)

(2006/C 190/71)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 193 of 6.8.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-206/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 June 2006 — Colombani v Commission

(Case F-75/05) (1)

(2006/C 190/72)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-294/05 and transferred to the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

---

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/38

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 19 June 2006 — Nanbru v Parliament

(Case F -127/05) (1)

(2006/C 190/73)

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register, following amicable settlement.

---

(1)  OJ C 60, 11.3.2006.

---

III Notices

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/39

---

(2006/C 190/74)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 178, 29.7.2006

Past publications

OJ C 165, 15.7.2006

OJ C 154, 1.7.2006

OJ C 143, 17.6.2006

OJ C 131, 3.6.2006

OJ C 121, 20.5.2006

OJ C 108, 6.5.2006

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

---