Case C-352/03 P: Appeal brought on 11 August by P. Del Vaglio against the judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between P. Del Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2003-10-18
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), pension scheme, regulations for civil servants

18.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 251/5

dually, depart from actual values to an extent not greater
than a certain threshold?

and, consequently,

2. With reference to the duty of each Member State to adopt
‘appropriate penalties’ for the infringements established
by1 the first and fourth directives (Directive 68/151/EEC
and Directive 78/660/EEC), must the directives themselves
and in particular the combined provisions of Article 44(3)
(g) of the Treaty, Articles 2(1)(f) and 6 of the first directive
(Directive 68/151/EEC) and Article 2(2), (3) and (4) of
the fourth directive (Directive 78/660/EEC, as amended by
Directive 83/349 and Directive 90/605), be interpreted as
meaning that that legislation precludes a law of a Member
State which, in the case of infringement of the obligations
imposed in order to safeguard the principle of public and
accurate company information, lays down a sanctionative
system which actually allows false accounting to the
extent of one fifth of the company's net assets?

(1) English special edition...: Series-I I Chapter 1968(I), p. 41.
(2) OJ L 222 of 14.8.1978, p. 11.
(3) OJ L 193 of 18.7.1983, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 317 of 16.11.1990, p. 60.

Appeal brought on 11 August by P. Del Vaglio against the
judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities (Single Judge) in
Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between P. Del
Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-352/03 P)

(2003/C 251/10)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 June 2003 by
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
(Single Judge) in Joined Cases T-124/01 and T-320/01 between
P. Del Vaglio and Commission of the European Communities
was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Communities on 11 August 2003 by P. Del Vaglio, represented
by M. Famchon and B. Desrez, lawyers, with an address for
service in Paris.

1.

annul
the decision taken by the Commission on
5 April 2000 refusing to apply the weighting for
the United Kingdom to the applicant's pension from
8 May 1999 and, in so far as necessary, annul the
Commission's decision of 23 February 2001 rejecting
the applicant's complaint of 18 July 2000,

2. order the Commission to apply the weighting for the
United Kingdom with retroactive effect to 8 May
1999,

3. order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
assessed on an equitable basis at EUR 10 000 and to
pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
payable from 8 May 1999,

4. order the Commission to pay all the costs.

B.

Set aside the decision of the Court of First Instance in so
far as it dismissed the application in Case T-320/01 for
the period prior to 1 January 2001

and, consequently,

1.

annul
the decision taken by the Commission on
6 September 2001 rejecting the applicant's complaint
in respect of the application to his pension of a
weighting for the United Kingdom with effect from
24 September 2000,

2. order the Commission to apply a weighting for the
to

Kingdom with

retroactive

effect

United
24 September 2000,

3. order the Commission to pay damages provisionally
assessed on an equitable bases at EUR 15 000 and to
pay interest of 7 % on the balance of the pension
from 24 September 2000 until 1 April 2001.

Pleas and main arguments

The appellant claims that the Court should:

A.

Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
4 June 2003 in so far as it dismisses the application in
Case T-124/01

The Court of First Instance erred in considering that the docu-
ments produced provided sufficient evidence of the applicant's
intention to establish his residence in London only from
1 January 2001. The Court of First Instance also made an
error of law in considering that the fact that the applicant was

C 251/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.10.2003

deprived of the benefit of the inter-service meeting provided
for in the regulations had not adversely affected him. In the
absence of that meeting, the applicant was unable either to
present his case in an appropriate manner before a group of
representatives of the Commission or to know what probative
documents the Commission considered to be lacking.

2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Optigen Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise on the
following questions:

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) by order of that court
dated 25 July 2003, in the case of Société de produits
Nestlé SA against Mars UK Ltd

(Case C-353/03)

(2003/C 251/11)

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
(England & Wales) (Civil Division) dated 25 July 2003, which
was received at the Court Registry on 18 August 2003, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Société de produits Nestlé SA
against Mars UK Ltd on the following question:

Justice of

Whether
the distinctive character of a mark referred to
in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 89/104/EEC (1) and
Article 7(3) of Council Regulation 40/94 (2) may be acquired
following or in consequence of the use of that mark as part of
or in conjunction with another mark?

(1) First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to
the Member States relating to trade

approximate the laws of
marks OJ L 040, 11.02.1989, p. 1-7.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark OJ L 011, 14.01.1994, p. 1-36.

A. Under the common system of VAT, and in the light of
Council Directives 67/227/EEC (1) and 77/388/EEC (2), is
the entitlement of a trader to credit for a payment in
respect of VAT under a transaction to be judged by
reference to:

(1) only the particular transaction to which the trader
was a party including the trader's purposes in enter-
ing into it, or

(2)

(3)

transactions,

including subsequent
the totality of
transactions, making up a circular chain of supply
of which the particular
transaction forms part
including the purposes of other participants in the
chain of which the trader has no knowledge and/or
means of knowledge, and/or

the fraudulent acts and intention, whether arising
prior or subsequent to the particular transaction, of
other participants in the circular chain of whose
involvement the trader is unaware and of whose
acts and intentions the trader has no knowledge
and/or means of knowledge, or

(4)

some other, and if so what, criteria?

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, by order of
that court dated 28 July 2003, in the case of Optigen Ltd
against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

(Case C-354/03)

(2003/C 251/12)

Reference has been made to the Court of
the
European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Justice (England & Wales), Chancery Division, dated 28 July
2003, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 August

Justice of

B. Does the exclusion from the VAT regime of transactions
entered into by an innocent party, but which form links in
a carousel fraud by others, infringe the general principles
of proportionality, equal treatment or legal certainty?

(1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
harmonisation of legislation of Member States concerning turnover
taxes OJ P 071, 14.04.1967, p. 1301-1303.

(2) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonization of laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform bassis of
assessment OJ L 145, 13.06.1977, p. 1-40.