----

----

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 29 June 2004

in Case C-486/01 P: Front National v European Parliament (1)

(Appeal - Statement of formation of a group within the meaning of Rule 29(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament - Lack of political affinities - Retroactive dissolution of the TDI Group - Cross-appeal - Interpretation of the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC - Meaning of decision of ‘direct and individual’ concern to a natural or legal person - Inadmissibility of action brought by a national political party)

(2004/C 217/01)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-486/01 P: Front National, established at Saint-Cloud (France) (avocats: F. Wagner and V. de Poulpiquet de Brescanvel) — appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended Composition) of 2 October 2001 in Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99 Martinez and Others v Parliament [2001] ECR II-2823, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European Parliament (Agents: G. Garzón Clariana, J. Schoo and H. Krück) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), A. Rosas, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Hannover and the Sozialgericht Aachen): Silke Gaumain-Cerri v Kaufmännische Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, and Maria Barth v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (1)

(Social security - Freedom of movement for workers - EC Treaty - Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Benefits designed to cover the risk of becoming reliant on care - Payment by the care insurance of old age insurance contributions of the carer assisting the reliant person)

(2004/C 217/02)

Language of the case: German

In Joined Cases C-502/01 and C-31/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the the Sozialgericht Hannover (Germany) (C-502/01) and the Sozialgericht Aachen (Germany) (C-31/02) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Silke Gaumain-Cerri and Maria Barth and Kaufmännische Krankenkasse-Pflegekasse, and Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz — on the interpretation of the provisions of the EC Treaty and of secondary legislation relating to freedom of movement of Union citizens and in particular 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 Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997 L 28, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it has ruled:

----

(1)OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.

OJ C 109 of 4.5.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Full Court)

of 29 June 2004

in Case C-110/02: Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Union (1)

(Aid granted by the Portuguese Government to pig farmers - Aid intended to allow the repayment of aid declared incompatible with the common market - Council decision declaring such aid compatible with the common market - Illegality - Third subparagraph of Article 88(2) EC)

(2004/C 217/03)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-110/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Santaolalla Gadea, D. Triantafyllou and V. Di Bucci) v Council of the European Union (Agents: J. Carbery and F. Florindo Gijón) supported by Portuguese Republic (Agent: L. Fernandes and I. Palma) and French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and F. Million) — application for the annulment of Council Decision 2002/114/EC of 21 January 2002 authorising the Government of Portugal to grant aid to Portuguese pig farmers who were beneficiaries of the measures granted in 1994 and 1998 (OJ 2002 L 43, p. 18) — the Court (Full Court), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 131 of 1.6.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 24 June 2004

in Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/24/EC within the prescribed period - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Risks linked to chemical agents at work)

(2004/C 217/04)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Lemaire, assisted by C. Bergeot-Nunes) — application for a declaration that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) or, in any event, by not giving notice of those measures to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-295/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht): Gisela Gerken v Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden (1)

(Common agricultural policy - Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes - Regulations (EEC) No 3887/92 and (EC) No 2419/2001 - Applications for ‘livestock’ aid - Irregularities - Reduction in the amount of aid - Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Retroactive application of a less stringent provision)

(2004/C 217/05)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-295/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Niedersächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht (Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Gisela Gerken and Amt für Agrarstruktur Verden — on the interpretation of Article 10(2)(a) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36), Articles 44, 53 and 54 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 1992 L 327, p. 11), and Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities is to be interpreted as meaning that where, in an application for ‘livestock’ aid covered ratione temporis by Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes, there is an irregularity giving rise to a penalty under Article 10(2)(a) of that regulation, the competent authorities must apply retroactively the provisions of Article 44(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92, on the ground that those provisions are less severe as regards the conduct in question.

----

(1)OJ C 261 of 26.10.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02 (references for a preliminary ruling from the the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus): Elliniko Dimosio v Nikolaos Tsapalos and Konstantinos Diamantakis (1)

(Directive 76/308/EEC - Mutual assistance for the recovery of customs duties - Application to claims which arose prior to the entry into force of the Directive)

(2004/C 217/06)

Language of the case: Greek

In Joined Cases C-361/02 and C-362/02: references to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Diikitiko Efetio Piraeus (Greece) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Elliniko Dimosio and Nikolaos Tsapalos (C-361/02), Konstantinos Diamantakis (C-362/02) — on the interpretation of Article 1 of Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties (OJ 1976 L 73, p. 18), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustment to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colneric, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Council Directive 76/308/EEC of 15 March 1976 on mutual assistance for the recovery of claims resulting from operations forming part of the system of financing the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, and of the agricultural levies and customs duties, and in respect of value added tax and certain excise duties as amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as applying to customs claims which arose in one Member State under an instrument issued by that State before that directive entered into force in the other Member State, where the requested authority is situated.

----

(1)OJ C 305 of 7.12.2002.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

Case C-27/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 91/271/EEC - Decision 93/481/EEC - Collection and treatment of urban waste water - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2004/C 217/07)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-27/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. van Beek) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx, assisted by A. Cornet) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to the full implementing of Articles 3, 5 and 17 — the last being read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 4 — of Directive 91/271/EEC of the Council of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ 1991 L 135, p. 40), and of Commission Decision 93/481/EEC of 28 July 1993 concerning formats for the presentation of national programmes as foreseen by Article 17 of Directive 91/271/EEC (OJ 1993 L 226, p. 23), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive and that decision — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 70 of 22 March 2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-65/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC - Secondary education diploma awarded in another Member State - Access to higher education)

(2004/C 217/08)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-65/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: A. Snoecx) — application for a declaration that, by failing to take the measures necessary to ensure that holders of secondary education diplomas awarded in other Member States can gain access to higher education organised by Belgium's French Community under the same conditions as holders of the certificat d'enseignement secondaire supérieur (CESS), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 12 EC, 149 EC and 150 EC — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd (1)

(Arbitration clause - Repayment of sums advanced - Interest for late payment - Judgment by default)

(2004/C 217/09)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-127/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and C. Giolito) v Trendsoft (Irl) Ltd, established in Dublin (Ireland), — application by the Commission of the European Communities under Article 238 EC for repayment of the sum of EUR 21 303 paid by the Commission to the defendant in connection with the performance of contract No EP 23697 together with interest for late payment — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 22 June 2004

in Case C-155/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/70/EC - Medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma - Failure to transpose)

(2004/C 217/10)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-155/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: B. Stromsky and R. Amorosi) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Bergeot-Nunes) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/70/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council Directive 93/42/EEC as regards medical devices incorporating stable derivates of human blood or human plasma (OJ 2000 L 313, p. 22), or in any event by failing to notify those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 June 2004, in which it:

----

(1) OJ C 171 of 19.7.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-166/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Article 28 EC - Marketing of articles made of precious metals - ‘Gold’ and ‘gold alloy’)

(2004/C 217/11)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-166/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: B. Stromsky) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and F. Million ) — application for a declaration that, by reserving the term ‘gold’ for articles of a fineness of 750 parts per thousand, whilst those of a fineness of 375 or 585 parts per thousand are described as ‘gold alloy’, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 28 EC — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-169/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Regeringsrätten): Florian W. Wallentin v Riksskatteverket (1)

(Free movement of persons - Workers - Income tax - Restricted liability of a taxpayer receiving a small part of his income in one Member State and residing in another Member State)

(2004/C 217/12)

Language of the case: Swedish

In Case C-169/03: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC from the Regeringsrätten (Sweden) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Florian W. Wallentin and Riksskatteverket — on the interpretation of Article 39 EC — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Article 39 EC precludes a Member State's legislation from providing that

----

(1) OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-214/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 88/609/EEC - Air pollution - Large combustion plants)

(2004/C 217/13)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-214/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J.C. Schieferer and G. Valero Jordana) v Republic of Austria (Agents: H. Dossi and E. Riedl) — application for a declaration that, by failing to transpose correctly Council Directive 88/609/EEC of 24 November 1988 on the limitation of emissions of certain pollutants into the air from large combustion plants (OJ 1988 L 336, p. 1), in the version resulting from Council Directive 94/66/EC of 15 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 337, p. 83), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under that amended directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed of: P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 158 of 5.7.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

Case C-292/03: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland (1)

(Member State's failure to fulfil obligations - Environment - End-of-life vehicles - Directive 2000/53/EC)

(2004/C 217/14)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-292/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and P. Aalto) v Republic of Finland (Agent: A. Guimaraes-Purokoski) — application for a declaration that, by having failed to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of-life vehicles (OJ No L 269, p. 34) or, in any event, by having failed to inform the Commission thereof, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-311/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 1999/44/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2004/C 217/15)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-311/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and R. Loosli-Surrans) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees (OJ 1999 L 171, p. 12), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-331/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/53/EC - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2004/C 217/16)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-331/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. Konstantinidis and F. Simonetti) v French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues and E. Puisais) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/53/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on end-of life vehicles (OJ 2000 L 269, p. 34) and, in any event, by failing to notify them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 1 July 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

----

(1)OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-389/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 1999/74/EC)

(2004/C 217/17)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-389/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Bordes) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — application for a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens (OJ 1999 L 203, p. 53), and, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, F. Macken (Rapporteur) and K. Lenaerts, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 251 of 18.10.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 July 2004

in Case C-400/03 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris): Waterman SAS v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Tariff heading - Pen cases)

(2004/C 217/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-400/03: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Tribunal d'instance du VIIe arrondissement de Paris (France) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Waterman SAS, formerly Waterman SA, and Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects on the conformity of the Explanatory Notes for subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 of the Combined Nomenclature contained in the Commission's communication entitled ‘Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’ (OJ 2000 C 199, p. 1) with the combined nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff set out in 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), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2263/2000 of 13 October 2000 (OJ 2000 L 264, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004, in which it has ruled:

Examination of the question raised does not reveal any information such as to affect the validity of subheadings 4202 12 11 and 4202 12 19 of the Combined Nomenclature, contained in the Commission's communication entitled ‘Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’.

----

(1)OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

----

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 1 July 2004

in Case C-448/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/44/EC)

(2004/C 217/19)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-448/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K. Banks) v French Republic (Agents: G de Bergues and A. Bodard-Hermant) — application for a declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (OJ 1998 L 213, p. 13) or, in any event, by not communicating those provisions to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of: J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and F. Macken, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 July 2004, in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Il Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale della Liguria (Second Chamber) by order of that court of 22 April 2004, in case of Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera s.p.a. against Province of Genoa

(Case C-241/04)

(2004/C 217/20)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Il Tribunale Amminstrativo Regionale della Liguria, (Second Chamber) Italy of 22 April 2004 received at the Court Registry on 8 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Acquedotto De Ferrari Galliera s.p.a against Province of Genoa and Others on the following questions:

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by Il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria (Second Chamber) by order of that court of 22 April 2004, in case of Acquedotto Nicolay against Province of Genoa

(Case C-242/04)

(2004/C 217/21)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of Il Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale della Liguria, (Second Chamber) Italy of 22 April 2004 received at the Court Registry on 8 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Acquedotto Nicolay SpA against Province of Genoa and Others on the following questions:

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven by judgment of 28 May 2004 in the case of Transport Maatschappij Traffic B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken

(Case C-247/04)

(2004/C 217/22)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of 28 May 2004 of the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry), which was received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Transport Maatschappij Traffic B.V. v Staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken on the following question:

‘Must the term “legally owed” in Article 236 of the Community Customs Code (the CCC) (1) be understood as referring exclusively to the question whether the conditions for the incurrence of a customs debt, as set out in Chapter 2 of Title VII of the CCC, are fulfilled or can legal indebtedness arise only if there are no grounds, including grounds under the national provisions in force as specified in Article 4(23) of the CCC, for challenging the notification that duties are owed?’

----

(1)OJ L 302 of 13.10.1992, p. 1.

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 9 June 2004 in the case of Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-248/04)

(2004/C 217/23)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative court for trade and industry) of 9 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 11 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Koninklijke Coöperatie Cosun U.A. against Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (Minister for Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality) on the following questions:

----

(1)OJ L 175 of 12.7.1979, p. 1.

(2)OJ L 177 of 1.7.1981, p. 4.

(3)OJ L 262 of 16.9.1981, p. 14.

----

----

Action brought on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-255/04)

(2004/C 217/24)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The regime for granting licences to service providers established in another Member State who do not possess a licence delivered under comparable conditions in their State of origin is a purely automatic application of the regime which applies to service providers established in France and takes no account of the evidence and guarantees already submitted in the country of origin. The French regime's requirement for a licence in those conditions goes beyond what is necessary to safeguard the interests of the performers concerned. Also, the criterion of the benefit of the agency's activity in the light of the needs for the engagement of performers gives the Ministre du travail (Minister for Employment) who is responsible for the grant or withdrawal of the licences, a wholly discretionary power to exclude a foreign service provider because of a sufficiency of French agencies holding a licence in France.

The presumption of employment applied to a performing artist recognised as a service provider established in his Member State of origin where he usually provides similar services constitutes a restriction on the free movement of services since it is liable to prevent or impede the service provider's activities in another Member State where he lawfully provides similar services and goes beyond what is necessary to fulfil the objectives which underlie it. Furthermore, the presumption is very difficult to rebut and has consequences not only as regards the social security system but also as regards paid holidays and the supplementary retirement regime. Even if it applies without distinction to national artists and to those of other Member States, the presumption is a restriction which is liable to hinder or make less attractive the activities of performing artists established in a Member State where they lawfully provide similar services and which is disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued.

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division, by order of that court dated 15 June 2004, in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke against Frank Staddon Ltd and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield and K.V. Barnes against Marshalls Clay Products Ltd

(Case C-257/04)

(2004/C 217/25)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal (England and Wales), Civil Division dated 15 June 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Michael Jason Clarke and Frank Staddon Ltd, and J.C. Caulfield, C.F. Caulfield, K.V. Barnes and Marshalls Clay Products Ltd, on the following questions:

----

(1)  Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organization of working time. OJ L 307, 13.12.1993, p. 18-24

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice, The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, by order of that court dated 26 May 2004, in the case of Elizabeth Emanuel and Continental Shelf 128 Ltd

(Case C-259/04)

(2004/C 217/26)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice, The Person Appointed by the Lord Chancellor under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act 1994, on Appeal from the Registrar of Trade Marks, dated 26 May 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 16 June 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Elizabeth Emanuel and Continental Shelf 128 Limited on the following questions:

ARTICLE 3.1 (g) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/104 (1)

ARTICLE 12.2 (b) OF COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 89/104

----

(1)  First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks. OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1-7.

----

----

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-260/04)

(2004/C 217/27)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Wiedner, C. Cattabriga and L. Visaggio, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Although licences for the services of collection and acceptance of bets on horse races do not come within the scope of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1), it is however clear from Case C-324/98 Telaustria (2) that the national authorities which award such licences are, none the less, bound to comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality implied in the provisions of the EC Treaty concerning the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services (Article 43 et seq. and Article 49 et seq. respectively).

The same principles apply both to the award of licences and to their extension and renewal. In Community law extension or renewal of a licence is equivalent to the award of a new licence, which must therefore comply with that law.

The Court made it clear in Case C-275/98 Unitron Scandinavia and 3-S (3) that the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of nationality ‘implies, in particular, an obligation of transparency in order to enable the contracting authority to satisfy itself that it has been complied with.’

That obligation of transparency which is imposed on the contracting authority consists in ensuring, for the benefit of any potential tenderer, a degree of advertising sufficient to enable the services market to be opened to competition and the impartiality of procurement procedures to be reviewed.

In the Commission's opinion, it is wholly clear that the principle of transparency referred to above was not observed by the Italian authorities at the time of renewal of the aforementioned 329 licences for the collection and acceptance of bets on horse races to 1 January 2006 in favour of the incumbent holders outside a competitive tendering procedure.

----

(1)OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1

(2)  [2000] ECR I-10745

(3)  [1999] ECR I-8291, paragraph 31

----

----

Action brought on 29 June 2004 against the Kingdom of Belgium by the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-275/04)

(2004/C 217/28)

An action was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by C. Giolito and G. Wilms, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against the Kingdom of Belgium.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and principal arguments:

The Kingdom of Belgium's disregard of the Community provisions governing accounting entries has given rise to delays in making own resources available. Member States are required to enter the amounts of established, guaranteed and uncontested entitlements in the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(a) of Regulation No 1150/2000 (‘A Accounts’), whereas the accounts referred to in Article 6(3)(b) (‘B Accounts’) are reserved exclusively for established entitlements which have not yet been collected and for which no security has been provided. The amounts covered by a guarantee issued under the external transit system procedure (T1, TIR carnets, ATA carnets, etc.) may be entered in the separate accounts only if they have been duly contested, which implies inter alia that time-limits have been complied with and the action has been commenced in writing.

The Commission cannot accept the justifications put forward by Belgium in support of the anomalies and delayed entries.

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22.05.2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29.05.1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1).

(3)  OJ 2000 L 293, p. 9.

----

----

Action brought on 30 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-282/04)

(2004/C 217/29)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Albert Nijenhuis, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In 1998 the Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV was split into two independent firms: the Koninklijke KPN NV (KPN), for telecommunications activities, and the TNT POSTGROEP NV (TPG), for logistics and distribution. The shares of the firm Koninklijke KPN NV contain, alongside normal and preferential shares, a special nominal share to which certain privileges are attached. That special share is currently owned by the Netherlands State.

Pursuant to the statutes, special rights are attached to that special share with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the competent organs of the firm.

According to the Commission, the rights attached to the special share restrict the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment. Those special powers may, even if they are not explicitly discriminatory, make it more difficult to purchase shares in the undertaking concerned and discourage investors from other Member States from investing in shares of that undertaking. In particular, those rights result in a considerable restriction of the rights which are normally associated with direct investments in KPN. They may therefore affect the free movement of capital and thus constitute a restriction on the movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56 of the EC Treaty.

As the special powers also make it possible for the Netherlands State to exercise control over the conduct of the firm and the general course of its business, they also influence direct investment and for that reason they may also constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

----

----

Action brought on 1 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-283/04)

(2004/C 217/30)

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Hans Støvlbæk and Albert Nijenhuis, acting as Agents.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In 1998 the Koninklijke PTT Nederland NV was split into two independent firms: the Koninklijke KPN NV (KPN), for telecommunications activities, and the TNT POSTGROEP NV (TPG), for logistics and distribution. The shares of the firm TPG contain, alongside normal and preferential shares, a special named share to which certain privileges are attached. That special share is currently owned by the Netherlands State.

Pursuant to the statutes, special rights are attached to that special share with regard to the approval of certain decisions taken by the competent organs of the firm.

According to the Commission, the rights attached to the special share restrict the free movement of capital and freedom of establishment. Those special powers may, even if they are not explicitly discriminatory, make it more difficult to purchase shares in the undertaking concerned and discourage investors from other Member States from investing in shares of that undertaking. In particular, those rights result in a considerable restriction of the rights which are normally associated with direct investments in TPG. They may therefore affect the free movement of capital and thus constitute a restriction on the movement of capital for the purposes of Article 56 of the EC Treaty.

As the special powers also make it possible for the Netherlands State to exercise an influence over the conduct of the firm and the general course of its business, they also influence direct investment and for that reason they may also constitute a restriction of the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission does not dispute that the ensuring of a well-functioning postal system, as intended by the Netherlands Government, can be a mandatory reason of public interest. The Commission states however that the rights attached to the ‘golden share’ also affect the postal services which do not fall within the meaning of universal services as defined in Directive 97/67/EC (for example express post or logistics services); services of that kind are thus not based on overriding reasons of general interest that justify restrictions of the fundamental principles of the EC Treaty. Moreover, the Netherlands authorities have not made use of all possibilities provided for in Directive 97/67/EC in order to ensure the provision of a universal postal service. In that connection, it points out that in Directive 2002/39/EC there is provision for the Member States to introduce controls and specific procedures to ensure that the reserved services are respected. The use of the mechanism of special powers is not proportionate to the objective pursued. Finally, the discretionary nature of the exercise of the special powers is incompatible with the requirements laid down in the case law of the Court.

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale di Oristano by order of that court of 14 June 2004 in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna

(Case C-285/04)

(2004/C 217/31)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale di Oristano (Italy) of 14 June 2004, received at the Court Registry on 1 July 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ignazio Medda against the Banco di Napoli SpA and the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612/EC (1) having regard to the following defects:

----

(1)OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.

----

----

Appeal brought on 5 July 2004 by Eurocermex SA against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-286/04 P)

(2004/C 217/32)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 April 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-399/02 between Eurocermex SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 July 2004 (fax 29.6.2004) by Eurocermex SA, represented by A. Bertrand, Avocat.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The Court of First Instance carried out a separate examination of the various elements of which the mark applied for is composed and, confirming the decision of the Board of Appeal, held that those elements lacked distinctiveness so that the consumer would not be able to identify the origin of the goods. In so doing, the Court of First Instance sought to separate the various elements in order to consider them individually and thus deny the mark applied for any distinctive character. That represents a serious error in analysis and in law, as it is the overall perception of the sign as applied for that must be considered and not the various elements of the sign, taken individually.

In any event, the mark acquired its distinctive character in consequence of the widespread use which has been made of it as a rallying sign for a product and/or an undertaking.

----

----

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) by judgment of that court of 4 June 2004 in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz

(Case C-291/04)

(2004/C 217/33)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) of 4 June 2004, in the case of Ministère Public against Léon Henri Schmitz, which was received at the Court Registry on 9 July 2004.

The Tribunal de Police, Neufchâteau (Belgium) asks the Court of Justice to give a preliminary ruling on the following question:

Do Articles 10, 39, 43 and 49 of the EEC Treaty preclude a Member State from adopting a measure requiring a worker who is resident within its territory to register his vehicle there even when that vehicle belongs to his employer, a company established in another Member State and to which that worker is linked by an employment contract but in which at the same time he occupies the position of shareholder, director, day-to-day manager or similar?

----

----

Action brought on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

(Case C-299/04)

(2004/C 217/34)

An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 14 July 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Theofanis Christoforou, Legal Adviser, and Karolina Mojzesowicz, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 14 July 2003.

----

(1)OJ L 249, 17.9.2002, p. 21.

----

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

----

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 10 June 2004

in Case T-275/01, Mercedes Alvarez Moreno v European Parliament (1)

(Officials - Auxiliary servant - Conference interpreter - Article 74 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants - End of engagement)

(2004/C 217/35)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-275/01: Mercedes Alvarez Moreno, residing in Berlin (Germany), represented by G. Vandersanden, lawyer, against European Parliament (Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. de Wachter), application, first, for annulment of the decision no longer to engage conference interpreters who have reached the age of 65 years and, second, for damages, the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. García-Valdecasas, President, and P. Lindh and J.D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 10 June 2004 in which it:

----

(1)OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.

----

----

Action brought on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-158/04)

(2004/C 217/36)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 26 April 2004 by Erich Drazdansky, resident in Wiener Neustadt (Austria), represented by A. Leeb, lawyer.

The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland, also trading as Seven-Up International, Hamilton (Bermuda), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant lodged an application with the defendant Office for the word mark 'UUP'S' for goods in Class 32 (Application No 1 968 676). Opposition to that mark was lodged by The Concentrate Manufacturing Company of Ireland, holder of the Community trade mark and Spanish word mark ‘UP’ for goods in Classes 30 and 32.

By decision of 31 July 2003, notified on 1 August 2003 by fax, the Opposition Division upheld the opposition. By letter of 1 October 2003, received by the Office on 7 October 2003, the applicant appealed against that decision. By letter of 23 October 2003 the clerks' office of the Board of Appeal informed the applicant that the appeal had not been lodged within the time limit and requested the applicant to submit his observations on that point. The applicant subsequently lodged an application for restitutio in integrum.

By a decision of 3 March 2004 the Second Board of Appeal of the Office rejected that application and the applicant's appeal.

The applicant submits that the appeal was signed by the applicant's representative on the last day before expiry of the time limit and placed on the pile of post to be sent out by fax. However, by error, after payment of the appeal fee, the employee responsible for the post did not replace the item with the others to be sent by fax but with those to be sent by recorded mail.

The applicant claims that, in reaching the contested decision, the Office failed to apply correctly the rules in Regulation No 40/94 governing restitutio in integrum. Had they been correctly applied, the Office would have been obliged to conclude that the requirements for restitutio in integrum were fulfilled in the present case, since there was no organisational fault which would prevent restitution in integrum and the rules on late payment of fees in the fees regulations would have been applicable by analogy.

The applicant submits that objectively this is a case of a minor oversight that could not be prevented by reasonable commercial methods of organisation. It should also be borne in mind that the other party in the appeal proceedings suffered no procedural disadvantage.

----

----

Action brought on 30 April 2004 on by Eugénio Branco Lda against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-162/04)

(2004/C 217/37)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 30 April 2004 against Commission of the European Communities by Eugénio Branco Lda, represented by Bolota Belchior, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas and principal arguments adduced in support

On 29 June 1986, the applicant submitted to the Departamento para os Assuntos do Fundo Social Europeu (Department of European Social Fund Affairs – DAFSE) of the Portuguese State an application for financing to be granted by the ESF for vocational training for the period from 2 January 1987 to 31 December 1987, which was approved by Commission decision. The applicant requested payment of the balance from the DAFSE, there being a balance in favour of the applicant. The DAFSE analysed the accounts and documents relating to the applicant and documents relating to the training actions and, by decision of 13 March 1989, approved the request for payment of the balance. Similarly, the Commission approved the request for payment of the balance. On 8 August 2004, the Commission adopted the decision against which these proceedings are brought.

According to the applicant, the decision infringes Council Regulation (EEC) No 2950/83 of 17 October 1983, giving effect to Council Decision 83/516/EEC of 17 October 1983 on the tasks of the European Social Fund, since the applicant rigorously complied with all the relevant laws, regulations, directives, criteria, requirements and conditions when its application to the ESF was approved, thereby acquiring subjective vested rights. The contested decision thus infringes vested rights.

The decision at issue also breaches the principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and of legal certainty, since the approval decision gave the applicant the right and the legally significant expectation that it would receive the contributions if it carried out the training in accordance with the agreed conditions. According to the applicant, the Commission could have taken the action which it has now purported to take at the start of 1989, and by not doing so breached the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty.

Finally, the contested decision represents a serious breach of the principle of proportionality, since the applicant incurred the expenditure on the basis that the Commission would fulfil its commitment and its agreement to contribute.

----

----

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Przedsiebiorstwo Polmos Bialystock against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-180/04)

(2004/C 217/38)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Przedsiebiorstwo Polmos Bialystock, Bialystock, Poland, represented by Ms C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.

V & S Vin & Sprit AB was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-183/04)

(2004/C 217/39)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Tokai Europe GmbH, Mönchengladbach (Germany), represented by G. Kroemer, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant manufactures cigarette lighters and imports cigarette lighters and parts for cigarette lighters. It contests Commission Regulation (EC) No 384/2004.

The applicant submits that, by classifying, in the contested regulation, the base metal wheels imported for the manufacture of cigarette lighters in Mexico and Hong Kong as parts (of cigarette lighters) under subheading 961390 of the customs nomenclature, the Commission extended the scope of that subheading beyond its wording. As a result, primary products also used in other goods which cannot be classed under heading 9613 were classified as parts for cigarette lighters. The Commission thereby exceeded the limits of its discretion.

The applicant also claims that, in taking account of the intended use of the metal wheels in the manufacture of cigarette lighters, the Commission acted in breach of the principle that goods are to be classified according to their objective nature. In the reasons stated in the regulation, express reference is made to the wheels' intended use.

Moreover, the applicant submits that, when classifying the metal wheels, the Commission failed to comply with the explanatory notes on the Harmonised System (HS) issued by the Customs Cooperation Council in that, as is stated in the reasons, it based the classification of the wheels in the customs tariff on the criterion of intended use rather than applying the criterion of appearance.

----

(1)  OJ 2004 L 64, p. 21.

----

----

Action brought on 25 May 2004 by Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-185/04)

(2004/C 217/40)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 May 2004 by Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie, established in Paris, represented by Muriel Antoine-Lalance, lawyer.

Jacqueline Baudon was also a party to the proceedings in the proceedings before the Fourth Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Case T-188/04)

(2004/C 217/41)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by Freixenet S.A., established in Sant Sadurní d'Anoia (Spain), represented by Fernand de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

----

----

Action brought on 24 May 2004 by C. Van der Haegen against the European Economic and Social Committee

(Case T-189/04)

(2004/C 217/42)

Language of the case: French

An action against the European Economic and Social Committee was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 May 2004 by C. van der Haegen, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The competition notice at issue required as an entry condition, among others, that each candidate should have five years' working experience in the European institutions, of which at least four years should be with the Economic and Social Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions. For the first part of the competition, for which the applicant lodged his candidature, the competition notice required, in addition, that three years of the total experience should be in relation to the type of functions covered by that part.

The applicant, who has acquired rich and varied working experience in different European institutions, claims in support of his action that the competition notice is illegal and infringes Article 27 of the Staff Regulations and the principles of equality of treatment and of non-discrimination, since nothing can justify the requirement of working experience acquired solely with the Economic and Social Committee and/or the Committee of the Regions, to the exclusion of the other European institutions.

----

----

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-192/04)

(2004/C 217/43)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos De Descanso, S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by R. Ocquet, lawyer.

Legget & Platt, Incorporated was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. 1)

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)

----

----

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-199/04)

(2004/C 217/44)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Gul Ahmed Textil Mills Ltd, Landhi, Karachi (Pakistan), represented by L. Ruessmann, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant is a Pakistani company which produces bed linen and exports it to the European Union. Its products are subject to the anti-dumping duty imposed by the contested regulation. In support of its application to annul that regulation, the applicant invokes the following grounds:

----

(1)  OJ L66 4/3/2004 p. 1

(2)  OJ L 56, 06.03.1996 p. 1

----

----

Action brought on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-200/04)

(2004/C 217/45)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by the Regione Autonoma della Sardegna, represented by Domenico Dodaro, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In the contested decision, the Commission initiated the procedure under Article 88(2) of the Treaty declaring that aid granted by Article 5 of Regional Law 22/2000, providing for ‘interventions in favour of breeders to confront the epizootic disease of blue tongue’, was incompatible with the common market. That law provided for a series of interventions in favour of breeders who had suffered the negative effects of blue tongue.

In support of its claims the applicant pleads the following grounds:

----

----

Action brought on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-204/04)

(2004/C 217/46)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 by Indorata-Servicos e Gestao Lda, represented by T Wallentin, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 8 June 2004 by Alessandro Ianniello against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-205/04)

(2004/C 217/47)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by Alessandro Ianniello, residing at Brussels, represented by S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

This action is brought against the AIPN's decision of 18 February 2004 rejecting the applicant's complaint seeking the reconsideration of his career evaluation report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, by which it was not considered necessary to open an administrative enquiry on certain documents produced to the Joint Evaluation Commission of the RELEX Directorate General.

In support of his claims, the applicant relies on breach of certain essential procedural requirements, such as the rights of the defence, the administration's duty of impartiality and the duty to state reasons for its decisions.

In addition, the contested decision disregarded the applicant's right to protection of his personal data, the duty to have regard to the interests of officials and the principle of good administration.

----

----

Action brought on 7 June 2004 (fax/e-mail: 2 June 2004) by Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-206/04)

(2004/C 217/48)

Language of the case: Portuguese

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 June 2004 (fax/e-mail: 2 June 2004) by Fernando Rodrigues Carvalhais, represented by Paulo Graça, lawyer.

PROFILPAS, S.N.C. (Ufficio Veneto Brevetti) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the Government of Gibraltar against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-211/04)

(2004/C 217/49)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the Government of Gibraltar, represented by M. Llamas, lawyer, J. Temple Lang, Solicitor, A. Petersen, lawyer, and K. Nordlander, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market.

The applicant states that the Commission considers the reform regionally selective in that it confers tax advantages to companies in Gibraltar compared to companies in the United Kingdom and that the reform is materially selective in that specific features confer tax advantages to some companies in Gibraltar compared to other companies in Gibraltar.

In support of its application, the applicant submits firstly that the Commission misapplied the law and committed errors in reasoning in finding that Gibraltar's proposed tax reform is regionally selective.

In this regard, the applicant states that the assumption that Gibraltar is part of the United Kingdom, is wrong. According to the applicant, this is clear under domestic constitutional law, public international law and Community law.

The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission's regional selectivity principle cannot apply to Gibraltar. According to the applicant, the decision concerns two tax jurisdictions which are entirely separate and mutually exclusive so that Gibraltar's tax laws cannot be treated as derogations from tax law in the United Kingdom.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission misapplied the law and committed errors in reasoning in finding that tax reform is materially selective. According to the applicant, the reform is of a general nature and represents a reasonable choice of economic policy by Gibraltar.

According to the applicant, the provisions that companies who make no profits are not taxed and that companies are not required to pay more than a specified maximum amount, are merely designed to avoid over-taxation and do not apply selectively to a particular group or category.

The applicant also claims that the Commission is wrong in stating in relation to the payroll tax and property tax not applying to companies without commercial buildings or employees in Gibraltar, that the reform exempts an offshore sector and is materially selective on hat ground. The applicant claims furthermore that the Commission breached essential procedural requirements in this regard because neither the United Kingdom nor the applicant were given an opportunity to comment on this issue during the formal investigation.

Finally, the applicant submits that the reform cannot be considered selective because its nature, general scheme and essential features are designed to suit the special characteristics of the economy in Gibraltar and in particular its limited size, scarcity of labour, service dominated industry and operational simplicity for a small administration.

----

(1)  State aid C 66 /2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax reform

----

----

Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-214/04)

(2004/C 217/50)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was submitted: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd, Windsor (United Kingdom), represented by J. H. Maitland Walker, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister.

The Polo/Lauren Company LP was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-215/04)

(2004/C 217/51)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by M. Bethell, agent, assisted by D. Anderson QC and H. Davies, Barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the Commission decision of 30 March 2004 on the aid scheme which the United Kingdom is planning to implement with regard to the Government of Gibraltar Corporation Tax Reform (1). In the decision, the Commission finds that the proposed tax reform constitutes state aid incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the Commission's conclusions as to regional selectivity are vitiated by material errors of fact and are wrong in law.

According to the applicant, Gibraltar, which is a colony whose self-government the United Kingdom is obliged to develop under the UN Charter, does not form part of the United Kingdom as a matter of domestic, international and Community law. Furthermore, the applicant states that Gibraltar is distinct from the United Kingdom and that it receives no subsidy or financing from the United Kingdom. The applicant also claims that the tax systems of the United Kingdom and of Gibraltar are entirely separate and unconnected and that the reform proposals do not constitute a tax reduction to the tax system applicable in the United Kingdom. The Commission's approach also infringes, according to the applicant, the principle of equal treatment in that measures adopted by a symmetrically devolved region are not to be treated as state aid whereas the same measures adopted by a asymmetrically devolved region are.

The applicant contends that the Commission's conclusions with respect to material selectivity are wrong in law and are insufficiently reasoned.

The applicant finally submits that the Commission has infringed the applicant's right to be heard in that it did not raise certain matters upon which it has sought to base its decision during the course of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC.

----

(1)  State aid C 66/2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax reform.

----

----

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-236/04)

(2004/C 217/52)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belguim and Stichting Natuur en Millieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Atrazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Atrazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Atrazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants submit that the contested provisions violate Directive 91/414. Article 8 of this directive provides that Member States may continue to authorise, for a 12-year period, substances which had already been on the market two years after the notification of the directive. Atrazine is such a substance. However, if in the meantime such substances have not been included in Annex I, then according to the applicants there is no legal basis in Directive 91/414 for allowing continued use after the expiry of the 12-year transitional period. The applicants thus submit that by the contested provisions the Commission created a new basis for a continued authorisation of Atrazine, even though it had no power to do so under Directive 91/414.

The applicants also claim that the Commission violated Directive 92/43 (3), by not including in the contested decision further restrictions related to the Special Areas of conservation, more specifically the Natura 2000 network of article 3 of Directive 92/43.

----

(1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004, p. 53.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

(3)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, Official Journal L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7-50.

----

----

Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/04)

(2004/C 217/53)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the European Commission was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by State Advocate Danilo del Gaizo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2004)930 fin of 30 March 2004 relating to Proceeding No C62/2003 (ex NN 7/2003) declaring incompatible with the common market State aid in respect of urgent measures concerning employment to which Italy gave effect in the Decree-Law of 14 February 2003 converted into Law No 81 of 17 April 2003. In particular the Commission found that the aid measure at issue confers a financial benefit on persons acquiring undertakings in financial difficulties, which are subject to extraordinary administration, have at least 1000 employees and prior to 30 April 2003 entered into a collective agreement with the Ministry of Labour for approval of the transfer of workers, as well as for undertakings in financial difficulty subject to extraordinary administration having at least 1 000 employees and subject to transfer.

In support of its claims the applicant State maintains that:

----

(1)  OJ 2002 L 331, p. 3.

----

----

Action brought on 9 June 2004 by European Environmental Bureau and Stichting Natuur en Millieu against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-241/04)

(2004/C 217/54)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 June 2004 by by European Environmental Bureau, Brussels, Belgium and Stichting Natuur en Milieu, Utrecht, The Netherlands, represented by Mr P. van den Biesen and Mr B. Arentz, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

By the contested decision the Commission decided not to amended Annex I to Directive 91/414 (2) so as to include ‘Simazine’ among the active substances listed there. Article 4 of Directive 91/414 states that only plant protection products containing substances listed in Annex I may be authorised by Member States. By refusing to include Simazine in Annex I the Commission decided not to allow further use of plant protection products containing this substance.

The applicants do not challenge this aspect of the decision but rather certain transitional provisions which allow until 30 June 2007 and subject to conditions aimed at minimising risk certain limited uses of products containing Simazine. In the preamble to its decision the Commission justified these transitional measures through the current absence of efficient alternatives and the need to allow time for their development.

In support of their application the applicants invoke the pleas and arguments invoked by the same applicants in case T-236/04.

----

(1)  OJ L 78 16.3.2004 p. 50.

(2)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market, Official Journal L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1-32.

----

----

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit against Europol

(Case T-244/04)

(2004/C 217/55)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against Europol was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Elisabeth Saskia Smit, residing in Scheveningen (Netherlands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant contests the defendant's decision not to consider her for a number of vacant posts. The applicant submits that the defendant committed a manifest error of assessment.

----

----

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-246/04)

(2004/C 217/56)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Jacques Wunenburger, residing in Zagreb (Croatia), represented by E. Boigelot, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of his action, the applicant claims that there has been a breach of the second paragraph of Article 25 and of Articles 26 and 43 of the Staff Regulations and also of the general implementing provisions relating to the latter article adopted by the Commission on 26 April 2002. He also claims that there has been a breach of the rights of defence, of the principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard for his welfare and of the principle of equal treatment, and also a manifest error of assessment.

----

----

Action brought on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-247/04)

(2004/C 217/57)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 June 2004 by Asociación de Exportadores Españoles de Productos Farmacéuticos (Aseprofar) y Española de Desarrollo e Impulso Farmacéutico, SA (Edifa), established in Madrid, represented by L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The present action seeks annulment of the decision contained in the letters from the European Commission of 2 April and 6 and 10 May 2004, in that they reject the complaints put forward by the applicants (P/2002/4609 and 2003/5119) against the adoption of Real Decreto 725/2003 of 13 June 2003 inasmuch as it amends certain aspects of Article 100(2) of Ley 25/1990 on medicinal products.

The Real Decreto requires wholesalers which distribute pharmaceutical products to notify the health authorities of the quantities of medicinal products supplied to pharmacies and other wholesalers. That information is subsequently provided to pharmaceutical laboratories by that public authority. The applicants consider that pharmaceutical laboratories can thus effectively take measures to block exports to other Community countries carried out by exporting wholesalers, by learning which wholesalers are exporting medicinal products, what pharmaceutical products are being exported and in what quantities.

The applicants therefore consider that the Real Decreto in question infringes Article 29 of the EC Treaty or Article 10 thereof in conjunction with Article 29.

----

----

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-248/04)

(2004/C 217/58)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Scania AB (Publ), Södertälje (Sweden), represented by D. Arts and F. Herbert, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant states that the Commission's approval of the concentration between Volvo and Renault Vehicules Industriels (1) was conditional upon Volvo divesting its shares in Scania (the Scania undertaking). In the contested decision, the Commission accepted the divestiture proposals of Volvo according to which Volvo would transfer its remaining Scania shares to a subsidiary, Ainax. The applicant furthermore states that the Ainax shares would be distributed as dividend to the shareholders of Volvo.

According to the applicant, the contested decision infringes the Scania undertaking provided for in the Commission's decision of 1 September 2000, as well as Article 6(1)(c) and 6(2) of Regulation 4064/89 (2).

According to the applicant, the creation of an intermediate structure, Ainax, preserves the block of shares currently controlled by Volvo rather then dispersing it amongst the shareholders of Volvo. The applicant furthermore submits that because Renault has an approximate 20 % shareholding in Volvo, Renault controls approximately 20 % of Ainax which in turn controls approximately 25 % of Scania. The applicant therefore submits that the divestment structure grants Renault, and Volvo indirectly, a substantial influence over the applicant and a privileged inside knowledge of its business secrets. According to the applicant, it is therefore not able to act as an independent alternative to the Volvo/Renault VI group.

----

(1)  Commission Decision of 1 September 2000 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market (Case No IV/M.1980 - 3* VOLVO/RENAULT V.I.) according to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (OJ C 301, p. 23).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 of 21 December 1989 on the control of concentrations between undertakings (OJ 1990 L 257, p. 13).

----

----

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-249/04)

(2004/C 217/59)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant in the present case alleges that he suffered as a result of the conduct of his immediate hierarchical superior in the form of threats, intimidation and personal and professional humiliation during the period in which the applicant was a resident adviser to the Commission's Delegation to Guatemala. The conduct in question amounted to discrimination which damaged his professional life and had serious effects on his state of health.

The refusal to accede to the application for assistance within the meaning of Article 24 of the Staff Regulations should therefore be regarded as unlawful. The CDR for the period in question should also be regarded as unlawful.

----

----

Action brought on 21 June 2004 by Philippe Combescot against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-250/04)

(2004/C 217/60)

Language of the case: French

An action was a brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 June 2004 against the Commission of the European Communities by Philippe Combescot, represented by Alberto Maritati and Viola Messa, lawyers.

The applicant claims that Court of First Instance should:

Pleas and main arguments adduced in support

The applicant takes exception to the defendant's refusal to admit to the competition procedure his application for the vacant post of Head of Delegation for Colombia.

In support, the applicant alleges:

----

----

Action brought on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-251/04)

(2004/C 217/61)

Language of the case: Greek

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 22 June 2004 by the Hellenic Republic, represented by V. Kontolaimos and I. Khalkias.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested decision the Commission, in clearing the accounts in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 729/70, excluded from Community financing various expenditure effected by the Hellenic Republic in the fruit and vegetables sector and in the sector of public storage, with the result that it is not recognised as legitimate Community expenditure and is chargeable to the Hellenic Republic.

More specifically, certain of that expenditure relates to the public storage of rice for the financial years 1999-2001. The Commission cited as the reason for non-recognition the late bringing into intervention of part of the quantity of rice. In support of its action against the part of the decision concerning that expenditure, the Hellenic Republic claims that the principle of proportionality was infringed by the Commission's refusal to recognise force majeure owing to a lorry-drivers' strike. It also claims that the principle of protection of legitimate expectations is infringed by reason of the failure of the Commission's services to state the Commission's position on the notification that it was envisaged that the bringing into intervention would be late for reasons of force majeure. The Hellenic Republic also alleges inadequate reasoning on the particular question of failure to keep within guidelines VI/5330/97 which provide for application of flat rate corrections when the actual level of the irregular payments cannot be determined.

Another part of the expenditure which was excluded from financing concerns the correction for failure to pay the minimum price to producers of peaches. On that point of the contested decision, the Hellenic Republic acknowledges that producer organisations were paid directly rather than the processor, but cites exceptional circumstances which, in its view, justify that action, which it considers to be in keeping with the aim of the common agricultural policy and the common organisation of the market, asserting further that this did not occasion any harm. The Hellenic Republic maintains in addition that the amount of the correction was wrongly calculated.

As regards the correction of 2 % in relation to the programme for helping deprived persons, the Hellenic Republic alleges that Articles 1, 2 and 9 of Regulation No 3149/92 (1) were misinterpreted, that the circumstances were wrongly assessed, and that there was inadequate reasoning.

As regards the correction made to the three-year restructuring programme for fruit and vegetables, Greece alleges misinterpretation of Article 2 of Regulation No 3816/92 (2), mistaken assessment of the circumstances in the particular sense that what was achieved within the three-year period had to be paid for rather than what was functioning, just as restructuring action had to be paid for; this took place six months after the end of the three-year period and was paid for in the first six-month period of 2000.

Lastly, the Hellenic Republic puts forward a general plea in support of annulment concerning all parts of the contested decision, asserting that the Commission did not have the power at the time to impose corrections for the periods at issue in accordance with the provisions of Article 7(4) of Regulation No 1258/99 (3), in conjunction with Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/1995 (4). These require that an evaluation of the expenditure to be corrected must be contained in the communication under Article 8 of Regulation No 1663/95 with a view to calculating the 24-months preceding that communication in order for corrections to be imposed.

----

(1)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3149/92 of 29 October 1992 laying down detailed rules for the supply of food from intervention stocks for the benefit of the most deprived persons in the Community (OJ L 313 of 30.10.1992, p. 50).

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3816/92 of 28 December 1992 providing for, in the fruit and vegetables sector, the abolition of the compensation mechanism in trade between Spain and the other Member States and allied measures (OJ L 387 of 31.12.1992, p. 10).

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1258/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the financing of the common agricultural policy (OJ L 160 of 26.06.1999, p. 103).

(4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 of 7 July 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 regarding the procedure for the clearance of the accounts of the EAGGF Guarantee Section (OJ L 158 of 8.7.1995, p. 6).

----

----

Action brought on 18 June 2004 by Caviar Anzali against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-252/04)

(2004/C 217/62)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 June 2004 by Caviar Anzali, established in Colombes (France), represented by Jean-François Jésus, lawyer.

Novomarket S.A. was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-256/04)

(2004/C 217/63)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Mundipharma AG, Basel (Switzerland), represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer.

Altana Pharma AG, Konstanz (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Action brought on 23 June 2004 by CESTAS (Centro di Educazione Sanitaria e Technologie Appropriate Sanitarie) against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-260/04)

(2004/C 217/64)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 June 2004 by CESTAS (Centro di Educazione Sanitaria e Technologie Appropriate) (Centre for Health Education and Appropriate Health Technologies), represented by Nicoletta Amadei and Charles Turk, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

This action seeks the annulment of the decision of the Commission (Republic of Guinea delegation) of 21 April 2004 under which the applicant, an NGO operating in Guinea since 1987, was ordered to pay the sum of 959 543 835 Guinean francs (equivalent to EUR 397 126.02) as costs considered unjustified in the carrying out of projects for which it is responsible.

In support of its claims, the applicant argues:

----

(1)OJ L 145 of 31.05.2001, p. 43.

----

----

Action brought on 1 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain v the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-266/04)

(2004/C 217/65)

Language of the case: Spain

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance on 1 July 2004 by the Kingdom of Spain, with an address for service at the Spanish Embassy, 4-6 Boulevard Emmanuel Servais, Luxembourg, represented by Fernando Díez Moreno, lawyer, acting as Agent.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision, in so far as it affects the applicant, involves four exclusions: (a) financial compensation for withdrawals of fruit and vegetables; (b) aid for the processing of lemons; (c) supplies of foodstuffs deriving from intervention stocks, intended for distribution to persons most in need; and (d) arable crops and cattle premiums. The present action relates only to the exclusion from financial compensation relating to withdrawals of fruit and vegetables (EUR 5 253 601, because of allegedly defective controls in Murcia and Valencia), and to the exclusion applied in relation to arable crops and cattle premiums, with the exception of the sum corresponding to the marketing year 2000/2001 in La Rioja in respect of arable crops, as a result of which the sum of which the exclusion is considered inappropriate in that sector is EUR 1 659 053.

In support of its claims, Spain relies on the following legal grounds:

----

----

Action brought on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-268/04)

(2004/C 217/66)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 June 2004 by Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, Spa (Belgium), represented by Emmanuel Cornu, Eric De Gryse and Donatienne Moreau, lawyers.

Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1)

----

----

Action brought on 29 June 2004 by IDOM, SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-269/04)

(2004/C 217/67)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 29 June 2004 by IDOM, SA, established in Bilbao (Spain), represented by T. Villate Consonni, lawyer at the Ilustre Colegio de Madrid (Madrid bar).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

----

----

Removal from the Register of Case T-304/99 (1)

(2004/C 217/68)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 10 June 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-304/99, Oliehandel Kuster B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)  OJ C 63, 4.3.2000.

----

----

Removal from the Register of Case T-69/02 (1)

(2004/C 217/69)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

By order of 7 June 2004 the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-69/02, Organización de Productores de Tunidos Congelados (OPTUC) v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)  OJ C 118 of 18.5.2002.

----

----

Removal from the register of Case T-249/03 (1)

(2004/C 217/70)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 11 June 2004, the President of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-249/03, Y v Commission of the European Communities.

----

(1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.

----

III Notices

----

(2004/C 217/71)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 201, 7.8.2004

Past publications

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004

OJ C 179, 10.7.2004

OJ C 168, 26.6.2004

OJ C 156, 12.6.2004

OJ C 146, 29.5.2004

OJ C 106, 30.4.2004

These texts are available on:

----