Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

No C 95 / 14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 30 . 3 . 96

institutions are able to transfer their rights to the
Community pensions scheme, the Kingdom of Spain has
failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 11 ( 2 ) of

v Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of officials of the

European Communities f 1 ) and Article 5 of the EC
Treaty ; and

2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

Despite the fact that the Kingdom of Spain acknowledges its
obligation to comply with the provisions and Royal Decrees
have been drafted, no national implementing measures in
the field have yet been adopted .

(') Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 259 / 68 of the Council of

29 February 1968 ( OJ, English Special Edition 1968 ( I ), p. 30 ),
as amended by Regulation ( EEC, Euratom, ECSC ) No 571 / 92

( OJ No L 62, 1962, p. 1 ).

by order of that court of 1 February 1996, received at the
Court Registry on 22 February 1996, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Hermes International societe en
commandite par actions, Paris v. FHT Marketing Choice BV
on the following question :

is an interim measure, such as, for example, is provided for
in Article 289 et seq . of the Wetboek van Burgerlijke
Rechtsvordering ( Netherlands Code of Civil Procedure )
whereby an immediate, enforceable measure may be sought,
covered by the expression ' provisional measures ' within the
meaning of Article 50 of the Agreement on Trade-related
Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ( TRIPS ) (*)?

(') OJ No L 336, 1994, p . 213 .

Removal from the register of Case C-402 / 95

( 96 / C 95 / 27 )
Reference for preliminary ruling from the
Arrondissementsrechtbank, Amsterdam, by order of that
court of 1 February 1996 in the case of Hermes An action against the Portuguese

before the Court of Justice of the

International societe en commandite par actions, Paris v.

FHT Marketing Choice BV

( Case C-53 / 96 )

( 96 / C 95 / 26 )

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice
of the European Communities by order of the
Arrondissementsrechtbank ( District Court ), Amsterdam,

An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
22 December 1995 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Antonio Caeiro, Legal
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg .

By order of 20 February 1996 the Court has ordered that
the case be removed from the register .

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 1996

in Case T-5 89 / 93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan v. European
Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working

Conditions ( 1 )

( Officials — Servants of the European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions —
Recruitment procedure — Rejection of an internal
candidate — Actions for annulment of measures — Action

for damages )

( 96 / C 95 / 28 )

( Language of the case : French )

In Case T-589 / 93 : Susan Ryan-Sheridan, a servant of the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and
Working Conditions, represented by Luc Misson and

Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liege Bar, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Evelyne Korn,
21, Rue de Nassau, v. European Foundation for the
Improvement of Living and Working Conditions ( Agents :
John McColgan and subsequently Terry Sheehan, in the

written procedure, and Clive Purkiss, in the oral procedure,
assisted by Denis Waelbroeck ) — application, first, for
the annulment of the notice of vacancy concerning
a post as administrator of the Foundation 's publications
programme, the notice of restricted competition relating to
the filling of that post, the recruitment committee 's
memorandum of 5 November 1993 and the decision of the
Director of the Foundation of 22 November 1993 rejecting
the applicant 's application for that post, and, second, an
order requiring the Foundation to pay damages in the sum
of Bfrs 75 000 the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of : C. P. Briet, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges ; B. Pastor, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 15 February 1996, in which it :

1 . dismisses the action ;

30 . 3 . 96 | EN Official Journal of the European Communities No C 95 / 15

2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs, including
those incurred in the procedure for interim measures .

(M OJ No C 43, 12 . 2 . 1994 .

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 1996

in Case T-125 / 95 : Hassan Belhanbel v. Commission of the

European Communities ( 1 )

( Official — Competition — Decision of the selection board
that a candidate has failed the oral test — Scope of the

obligation to state reasons )

( 96 / C 95 / 29 )

( Language of the case : French )

In Case T-125 / 95, Hassan Belhanbel, a former member of
the temporary staff of the Commission of the European
Communities, residing at Namur ( Belgium ), represented by
Jean-Noel Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of

the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Ana
Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for the annulment of the
decision of the selection board in competition COM / B / 765
awarding the applicant, in the oral test, a lower mark than
the minimum required and refusing to enter his name on the
reserve list — the Court of First Instance ( Third Chamber ),
composed of : C.P. Briët, President, and B. Vesterdorf and
A. Potocki, Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment
on 15 February 1996, in which it :

1 . dismisses the action ;

2 . orders the parties to bear their own costs .

( ! ) OJ No C 208, 12 . 8 . 1995 .

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT

OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 February 1996

in Case T-228 / 95 R : S. Lehrfreund Ltd v. Council of the

European Union and Commission of the European
Communities

( 96 / C 95 / 30 )

( Language of the case : English )

In Case T-228 / 95 R : S. Lehrfreund Ltd, established in
London, represented by Nicholas Forwood QC and Mark

Hoskins, Barrister, of the Bar of England and Wales, with an
address for service at Brick Court Chambers, 8 Avenue de la
Joyeuse Entree, Brussels, against Council of the European
Union ( Agents : Jürgen Huber and Guus Houttuin ) and
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Frank
Benyon and Lucio Gussetti ) — application for suspension of
the operation of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3254 / 91 of
4 November 1991 prohibiting the use of leghold traps in the
Community and the introduction into the Community of
pelts and manufactured goods of certain wild animal species
originating in countries which catch them by means of
leghold traps or trapping methods which do not meet
international humane trapping standards ( OJ No L 308,
p. 1 ) — the President of the Court of First Instance made an
order on 12 February 1996, the operative part of which is as
follows :

1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed ;

2 . costs are reserved .

Action brought on 21 December 1995 by ' T ' against the

European Parliament

Case T-233 / 95 )

( 96 / C 95 / 31 )

( Language of the case : Greek )

An action against the European Parliament was brought
before the Court of First Instance on 21 December 1995 by
' T ', represented by Harisios Tagaras, of the Thessaloniki
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau .

The applicant claims that the Court should :

— annul the staff report on the applicant for the period

1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995, in particular heading
10 . 1,

— annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the

Parliament of 19 September 1995 confirming the above
staff report,

— order the Parliament to pay the costs .

Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support :

The applicant, an official of the Parliament in Grade A 5
serving in the Legal Service, states that, for the purpose of
promoting another candidate, the detailed part of his staff
report for the period 1 January 1993 to 1 January 1995 was
decided in advance and did not correspond to reality . In
support of that claim he relies on the lack of consistency
between the detailed report and the general assessment
contained in the report . In his view the huge improvement