do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-367/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  30 March 2006  — Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council and Commission (Action for damages — International agreements — EEC-Turkey Association Agreement — Customs Union between the European Community and Turkey — Compensatory financial aid)
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, European Commission, Türkiye, action for annulment (EU), association agreement (EU), competition, motor vehicle industry

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/11

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2006
— Mausolf v Europol

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2006
— Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council
and Commission

(Case T-209/02 and T-210/04) (1)

(Case T-367/03) (1)

(Europol staff — Remuneration — Steps granted on the
basis of an appraisal — Director's decision)

(2006/C 121/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Action for damages — International agreements — EEC-
Turkey Association Agreement — Customs Union between
the European Community and Turkey — Compensatory
financial aid)

(2006/C 121/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Mausolf (Leiden, the Netherlands)
sented by: M. Baltusen and P. de Casparis, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: K.
Hennessy-Massaro and D. Heimans initially, then K. Hennessy-
Massaro, N. Urban and D. Neumann, Agents)

Application for

Firstly, annulment of the decision of 23 November 2001, by
which the director of Europol promoted the applicant by one
step with effect from 1 July 2001, and also of the implied deci-
sion rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision
and, secondly, annulment of the decisions of 2 January 2003
and 1 March 2004, by which the director of Europol decided
not to promote the applicant by a further step with effect from
1 July 2002.

Parties

Applicant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ
(Ümraniye, Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Sinner, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Bishop and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the
European Communities (represented by: G. Boudot and X.
Lewis, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by the
implementation of the procedures of the Customs Union insti-
tuted by the Agreement establishing an Association between
the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Addi-
tional Protocols and Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Associa-
tion Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final
phase of the Customs Union (OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.

(1) OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2006 of  17 May 2006  on import licences in respect of beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia ( OJ L 130, 18.5.2006 )
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Botswana, Eswatini, Kenya, Madagascar, Namibia, Zimbabwe, beef, boned meat, import licence, originating product

L 134/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 746/2006 of 17 May 2006 on import licences in respect of
beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia

(Official Journal of the European Union L 130 of 18 May 2006)

for:

On page 23, in Article 2:
‘… of May 2006…’,
‘… of June 2006 …’.

read:
Case C-11/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen lodged on  11 January 2006  — Rhiannon Morgan v Bezirksregierung Köln
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit, traineeship, vocational training

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Aachen lodged on 11 January 2006 — Rhiannon
Morgan v Bezirksregierung Köln

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2006 —
Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren

(Case C-11/06)

(2006/C 121/01)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Administrative Court, Aachen
(Germany))

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Rhiannon Morgan

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Question referred

Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the
Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member
State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an
education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full
course of study in another Member State on the ground that
the course does not represent the continuation of attendance at
a German education or training establishment for a period of
at least one year?

(Case C-12/06)

(2006/C 121/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iris Bucher

Defendant: Landrat des Kreises Düren

Question(s) referred

1. Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of
the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a
Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing
its
to award an education or training grant
nationals for a full course of study in another Member State
on the ground that the course does not constitute the conti-
nuation of attendance at a German education or training
establishment for a period of at least one year?

to one of

2. Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of
the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a
Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing
its
to award an education or training grant
nationals, who as a cross-border commuter is pursuing her
course of study in a neighbouring Member State, on the
grounds that she is residing at a border location in Germany
only for education or training purposes and that that place
of abode is not her permanent residence?

to one of
Case T -287/01: Order of the Court of First Instance of  20 March 2006  — Bioelettrica v Commission
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, appeal to the Court (EU), building industry, energy industry, termination of a contract

C 121/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Holcim (France) v Commission

(Case T -287/01) (1)

(2006/C 121/32)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case T -86/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/34)

Language of the case: French

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

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

(1) OJ C 31, 2.2.2002.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

(Case T -56/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/33)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM

(Case T-322/04) (1)

(2006/C 121/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4236 — Wendel-Carlyle/Stahl) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: chemical product, economic concentration, investment company, leather industry, merger control, private investment

C 120/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4236 — Wendel-Carlyle/Stahl)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 120/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 10 May 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertakings Wendel Investissement
(‘Wendel’, France) and Carlyle Europe Partners II LP belonging to the Carlyle group (‘Carlyle’, USA) acquire
within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation joint control of Stahl Holdings BV (‘Stahl’,
the Netherlands) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Wendel: listed investment firm investing in companies active in the industry, media and services

sectors in France and abroad;

— for Carlyle: private global investment firm;

— for Stahl: company active in the manufacture and trade of leather chemical products.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the
scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to
the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council
Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the
procedure set out in the Notice.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post,
under reference number COMP/M.4236 — Wendel-Carlyle/Stahl, to the following address:

European Commission
Competition DG
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Brussels

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case C-12/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on  11 January 2006  — Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, social-security benefit, traineeship, vocational training

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/1

I

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT OF JUSTICE

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Aachen lodged on 11 January 2006 — Rhiannon
Morgan v Bezirksregierung Köln

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs-
gericht Aachen (Germany) lodged on 11 January 2006 —
Iris Bucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren

(Case C-11/06)

(2006/C 121/01)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Administrative Court, Aachen
(Germany))

Parties to the main proceedings

Claimant: Rhiannon Morgan

Defendant: Bezirksregierung Köln

Question referred

Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of the
Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a Member
State, in a case such as the present, from refusing to award an
education or training grant to one of its nationals for a full
course of study in another Member State on the ground that
the course does not represent the continuation of attendance at
a German education or training establishment for a period of
at least one year?

(Case C-12/06)

(2006/C 121/02)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Verwaltungsgericht Aachen (Germany)

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Iris Bucher

Defendant: Landrat des Kreises Düren

Question(s) referred

1. Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of
the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a
Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing
its
to award an education or training grant
nationals for a full course of study in another Member State
on the ground that the course does not constitute the conti-
nuation of attendance at a German education or training
establishment for a period of at least one year?

to one of

2. Does the freedom of movement guaranteed for citizens of
the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC prohibit a
Member State, in a case such as the present, from refusing
its
to award an education or training grant
nationals, who as a cross-border commuter is pursuing her
course of study in a neighbouring Member State, on the
grounds that she is residing at a border location in Germany
only for education or training purposes and that that place
of abode is not her permanent residence?

to one of
Case T-4/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of  22 March 2006  — Strack v Commission (Officials — Official informing OLAF of possible irregularities — Decision of OLAF to close the investigation — Act adversely affecting an official — Standing to bring proceedings — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Publications Office of the European Union, action by staff, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU

C 121/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2006 —
Marcuccio v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2006 —
Strack v Commission

(Case T-176/04) (1)

(Case T-4/05) (1)

(Officials — Social security benefits — Access to informa-
tion about the existence of a medical report — Transmission
after the action was brought — No need to adjudicate)

(Officials — Official informing OLAF of possible irregulari-
ties — Decision of OLAF to close the investigation — Act
adversely affecting an official — Standing to bring proceed-
ings — Inadmissibility)

(2006/C 121/20)

Language of the case: Italian

(2006/C 121/21)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: A.
Distante, lawyer)

Parties

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents,
assisted by A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

Applicant: Guido Strack (Wasserliesch, Germany) (represented
by: R. Schmitt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: C. Ladenburger and H. Kraemer, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application for, in the first place, annulment of the Commis-
sion's implied decision rejecting the applicant's request to be
sent a medical report or the written confirmation that that
report does not exist; in the second place, annulment of the
Commission's implied decision rejecting the complaint made
about the rejection of that request and, in the third place, a
declaration of the applicant's right to have the claims in his
request and in his complaint granted.

Re:

First, an application for annulment of the decision of the Euro-
pean Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) of 5 February 2004 to close the
investigation number OF/2002/0356 and the final case report
on which that decision was based dated 5 February 2004 and,
secondly, an application to reopen that investigation and to
draw up a new final case report.

Operative part of the order

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

Operative part of the order

2. The Commission is to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred
by the applicant before the notification of the defence. The appli-
cant is to bear his own costs incurred after the notification of the
defence.

1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. Each party shall bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 179, 10.7.2004.

(1) OJ C 57, 5.3.2005.
Case T -86/03: Order of the Court of First Instance of  21 March 2006  — Holcim (France) v Commission
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), cement, fine, inter-company cooperation, interest, redemption

C 121/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Holcim (France) v Commission

(Case T -287/01) (1)

(2006/C 121/32)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case T -86/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/34)

Language of the case: French

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

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

(1) OJ C 31, 2.2.2002.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

(Case T -56/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/33)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM

(Case T-322/04) (1)

(2006/C 121/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4205 — Aleris International/Corus Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure Text with EEA relevance
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: alloy, aluminium, economic concentration, merger control, metalworking, plate, steel

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 120/25

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4205 — Aleris International/Corus Group)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2006/C 120/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 11 May 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
Article 4 and following a referral pursuant to Article 4(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by
which the undertaking Aleris International, Inc. (‘Aleris’, USA) acquires within the meaning of Article
3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of parts of the aluminium business (‘The Target Business’) of the
undertaking Corus Group plc (‘Corus’, UK), by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— for Aleris: recycling and processing of aluminium into aluminium alloys, production of magnesium

alloys, rolled products and zinc products;

— for Corus: supplier of steel and aluminium products;

— for The Target Business: rolled aluminium products (plate, sheet and coil) and extrusions.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the
scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant to
the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council
Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the
procedure set out in the Notice.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed

4.
operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post,
under reference number COMP/M.4205 — Aleris International/Corus Group, to the following address:

European Commission
Competition DG
Merger Registry
J-70
B-1049 Brussels

(1) OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ C 56, 5.3.2005, p. 32.
Case T-209/02 and T-210/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  22 March 2006  — Mausolf v Europol (Europol staff — Remuneration — Steps granted on the basis of an appraisal — Director's decision)
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Europol, action for annulment (EU), equal treatment, pay, staff regulations (EU)

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/11

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 March 2006
— Mausolf v Europol

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 March 2006
— Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret v Council
and Commission

(Case T-209/02 and T-210/04) (1)

(Case T-367/03) (1)

(Europol staff — Remuneration — Steps granted on the
basis of an appraisal — Director's decision)

(2006/C 121/18)

Language of the case: Dutch

(Action for damages — International agreements — EEC-
Turkey Association Agreement — Customs Union between
the European Community and Turkey — Compensatory
financial aid)

(2006/C 121/19)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Andreas Mausolf (Leiden, the Netherlands)
sented by: M. Baltusen and P. de Casparis, lawyers)

(repre-

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol) (represented by: K.
Hennessy-Massaro and D. Heimans initially, then K. Hennessy-
Massaro, N. Urban and D. Neumann, Agents)

Application for

Firstly, annulment of the decision of 23 November 2001, by
which the director of Europol promoted the applicant by one
step with effect from 1 July 2001, and also of the implied deci-
sion rejecting the applicant's complaint against that decision
and, secondly, annulment of the decisions of 2 January 2003
and 1 March 2004, by which the director of Europol decided
not to promote the applicant by a further step with effect from
1 July 2002.

Parties

Applicant: Yedaş Tarim ve Otomotiv Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ
(Ümraniye, Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Sinner, lawyer)

Defendants: Council of the European Union (represented by: M.
Bishop and D. Canga Fano, Agents) and Commission of the
European Communities (represented by: G. Boudot and X.
Lewis, Agents)

Re:

Action for compensation for damage allegedly caused by the
implementation of the procedures of the Customs Union insti-
tuted by the Agreement establishing an Association between
the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Addi-
tional Protocols and Decision 1/95 of the EC-Turkey Associa-
tion Council of 22 December 1995 on implementing the final
phase of the Customs Union (OJ 1996 L 35, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the actions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. Dismisses the action;

2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 202, 24.8.2002.

(1) OJ C 59 of 6.3.2004.
Case T-322/04: Order of the Court of First Instance of  21 March 2006  — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 121/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Holcim (France) v Commission

(Case T -287/01) (1)

(2006/C 121/32)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case T -86/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/34)

Language of the case: French

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

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

(1) OJ C 31, 2.2.2002.

(1) OJ C 112, 10.5.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 March 2006 —
Bioelettrica v Commission

(Case T -56/03) (1)

(2006/C 121/33)

Language of the case: Italian

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

(1) OJ C 101, 26.4.2003.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2006 —
Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM

(Case T-322/04) (1)

(2006/C 121/35)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

(1) OJ C 262, 23.10.2004.