JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-416/02: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Meaning of ‘waste’ - Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Directive 91/271/EEC - Urban waste-water treatment - Directive 91/676/EEC - Protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources - Pollution caused by a pig farm)

(2005/C 271/01)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-416/02: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 November 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: K. Manji, and subsequently C. White, instructing D. Wyatt QC) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by failing to ensure that urban waste water from the agglomeration of Vera is subjected to such treatment as is required by Article 5(2) of Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment, that is to say treatment which is more stringent than that described in Article 4 of that directive, and by failing to designate the Rambla de Mojácar as a vulnerable zone contrary to Article 3(1), (2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to bear two thirds of all the costs and the Commission of the European Communities to bear the other third;

4.	Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 31 of 08. 02. 2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-37/03 P: BioID AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Appeal - Community trade mark - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word and figurative mark - BioID - Absolute ground for refusal to register - Trade mark devoid of any distinctive character)

(2005/C 271/02)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-37/03 P: appeal under Article 56 of the Statute of the Court of Justice lodged at the Court on 3 February 2003 by BioID AG, established in Berlin (Germany), in judicial liquidation, (Rechtsanwalt: A. Nordemann), the other party to the proceedings being the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: A. von Mühlendahl and G. Schneider,) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J. P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

1.	Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 5 December 2002 in Case T-91/01 BioID v OHIM (BioID) [2002] ECR II-5159;

2.	Dismisses the action against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 February 2001;

3.	Orders the appellant to pay the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal.

---

(1)  OJ 70, 22.03.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-121/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/156/EEC - Meaning of ‘waste’ - Directives 85/337/EEC and 97/11/EC - Assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Directive 80/778/EEC - Quality of water intended for human consumption)

(2005/C 271/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

In Case C-121/03: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 19 March 2003, by Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Rosas, President of the Chamber, J.P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by failing to carry out, prior to the construction of the pig farms in the Baix Ter area or their alteration, an impact assessment, contrary to the requirements of Articles 2 and 4(2) of Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment, and by exceeding, in various public water distribution networks in the Baix Ter area, the maximum admissible concentration for the nitrates parameter laid down in point 20 of Annex IC to Council Directive 80/778/EEC of 15 July 1980 relating to the quality of water intended for human consumption, contrary to Article 7(6) of that directive, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay two thirds of all the costs and the Commission of the European Communities to bear the other third.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 26 May 2005

in Case C-132/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato in Ministero della Salute v Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Federconsumatori (1)

(Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 - Article 2(2)(b) - Additional labelling requirement for foodstuffs - Compulsory particulars concerning the presence of material derived from genetically modified organisms (GMOs) - Genetically modified soya beans and maize - Exemption from the requirement in the case of adventitious presence not exceeding a particular level - Foodstuffs intended for particular nutritional use - Infants and young children - Whether derogation applies - Precautionary principle)

(2005/C 271/04)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-132/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Consiglio di Stato (Italy), made by decision of 25 March 2003, received at the Court on 28 January 2003 in the proceedings between Ministero della Salute and Coordinamento delle associazioni per la difesa dell'ambiente e dei diritti degli utenti e dei consumatori (Codacons), Federconsumatori, intervening parties: Lega delle Cooperative, Associazione Italiana Industrie Prodotti Alimentari (AIIPA), Adusbef — the Court (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and R. Schintgen,, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Principal Administrator, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Article 2(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1139/98 of 26 May 1998 concerning the compulsory indication on the labelling of certain foodstuffs produced from genetically modified organisms of particulars other than those provided for in Directive 79/112/EEC, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 49/2000 of 10 January 2000, is to be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides from the obligation, laid down in Article 2(1) and (3) of that regulation, to state on the labelling of foodstuffs that material derived from certain GMOs is present, where such presence is the result of adventitious contamination and does not exceed a de minimis threshold of 1 %, also applies to foodstuffs intended for the particular nutritional use of infants and young children.

---

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-199/03: Ireland v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Action for annulment - European Social Fund - Reduction of Community financial assistance - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations)

(2005/C 271/05)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-199/03: Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, P. Gallagher SC and P. McGarry BL) v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: L. Flynn) — action for annulment under Article 230 EC, brought on 13 May 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

1.	Dismisses the action;

2.	Orders Ireland to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Joined Cases C-281/03 and C-282/03, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven: Cindu Chemicals BV and Others v College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen (1)

(Directive 76/769/EEC - Dangerous substances - Ability of the Member States to lay down additional conditions for the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the use of whose active substance is restricted by the directive - Wood preservatives containing coal-tar distillates (carbolineum and creosote) - Wood preservatives containing copper, chrome and arsenic)

(2005/C 271/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Joined Cases C-281/03 and C-282/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands), made by decision of 26 June 2003, received at the Court on 30 June 2003, in the proceedings between Cindu Chemicals BV (C-281/03), Rütgers VFT AG, Touwen & Co. BV, Pearl Paint Holland BV, Elf Atochem Nederland BV, Zijlstra & Co. Verf BV, Chemische Producten Struyk & Co. BV, Van Swaay Schijndel BV, Houtbereiding G. Rozendaal BV, Arch Timber Protection BV (C-282/03) and College voor de toelating van bestrijdingsmiddelen, intervener: Stichting Behoud Leefmilieu en Natuur Maas en Waal — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, J. Makarczyk, P. Kūris and G. Arestis (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Council Directive 76/769/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations, as amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 94/60/EC of 20 December 1994, must be interpreted as not permitting a Member State to impose on the placing on the market and use of a biocidal product the active substance of which is included in Annex I thereto conditions other than those which the directive lays down, without prejudice to the application of other relevant Community provisions laying down specific conditions for that product.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 18.10.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/439/EEC - Driving licences - Minimum age requirement to drive certain vehicles - Possibility of driving vehicles in a category other than the one for which a driving licence has been issued - Compulsory registration and exchange of driving licences)

(2005/C 271/07)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-372/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and W. Wils) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: M. Lumma) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Paragraph 6(3), point 6, and (4), the first sentence of Paragraph 10(2), and Paragraphs 29(1) and (3) and 47(2) of the Regulation relating to the entitlement of persons to drive on the highway (Verordnung über die Zulassung von Personen zum Strassenverkehr) of 18 August 1998, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 1(2), 3, 5(2)(b), the third indent of Article 6(1)(b) and Article 8(2) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 96/47/EC of 23 July 1996;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 5 July 2005

in Case C-376/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch D. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)

(Tax legislation - Wealth tax - Entitlement to an allowance - Separate treatment of residents and non-residents - Double taxation convention)

(2005/C 271/08)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-376/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Gerechtshof te 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands), made by decision of 24 July 2003, received at the Court on 8 September 2003, in the proceedings between D. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen — the Court (Grand Chamber) composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur), M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 July 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.	Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude legislation under which a Member State denies non-resident taxpayers who hold the major part of their wealth in the State where they are resident entitlement to the allowances which it grants to resident taxpayers.

2.

Articles 56 EC and 58 EC do not preclude a rule laid down by a bilateral convention for the avoidance of double taxation such as the rule at issue in the main proceedings from not being extended, in a situation and in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, to residents of a Member State which is not party to that convention.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-495/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden in Intermodal Transport BV v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Common Customs Tariff - Tariff headings - Classification in the combined nomenclature - Heading 8709 - ‘Magnum ET120 Terminal Tractor’ - Article 234 EC - Obligation of a national court to refer a question for a preliminary ruling - Conditions - Binding tariff information issued for a third party by the customs authorities of another Member State concerning a similar vehicle)

(2005/C 271/09)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-495/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 21 November 2003, received at the Court on 24 November 2003, in the proceedings between Intermodal Transport BV and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

Article 234 EC must be interpreted as meaning that when, in proceedings relating to the tariff classification of specific goods before a national court or tribunal, a binding tariff information relating to similar goods issued to a person not party to the dispute by the customs authorities of another Member State is submitted, and that court or tribunal takes the view that the tariff classification made in that information is wrong, those two circumstances: — cannot result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is a judicial remedy under national law, in the court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpretation; — cannot, in themselves, automatically result, in respect of a court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, in the court or tribunal being under an obligation to refer to the Court questions on interpretation. A court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law is, however, required, where a question of Community law is raised before it, to comply with its obligation to make a reference, unless it has established that the question raised is irrelevant or that the Community provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court or that the correct application of Community law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt. The existence of such a possibility must be assessed in the light of the specific characteristics of Community law, the particular difficulties to which its interpretation gives rise and the risk of divergences in judicial decisions within the Community; the existence of the abovementioned binding tariff information must cause that court or tribunal to take particular care in its assessment of whether there is no reasonable doubt as to the correct application of the combined nomenclature 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, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2261/98 of 26 October 1998, taking account, in particular, of the three criteria mentioned above.

2.

Heading 8709 of the combined nomenclature must be interpreted as not covering a vehicle equipped with a diesel engine having an output of 132 kilowatts at 2 500 revolutions per minute and automatic transmission with four forward gears and one reverse gear, fitted with a closed cab and a fifth wheel allowing a lift height of 60 centimetres, which has a maximum carrying capacity of 32 000 kilograms, a very small turning circle and is designed for moving semi-trailers on industrial premises and in industrial buildings. Such a vehicle is neither a works truck used for the transport of goods nor a tractor of the type used in railway stations, within the meaning of that heading.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-500/03: Commission of the European Communities v Portuguese Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 98/34/EC - Technical standards and regulations - National rules applicable to recreational craft)

(2005/C 271/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

In Case C-500/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: A. Caeiros) v Portuguese Republic (Agents: L. I. Fernandes and M. J. Lois) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 November 2003 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and P. Kűris (Rapporteur), Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by adopting Ministerial Decree No 783/98 of 19 September 1998 without having notified it to the Commission of the European Communities at the draft stage, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8 of Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and the rules on information society services, as amended by Directive 98/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 July 1998;

2.	Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03: References for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État Mobistar SA v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA v Commune de Schaerbeek (1)

(Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) - Telecommunications services - Directive 90/388/EEC - Article 3c - Lifting of all restrictions - Municipal taxes on transmission pylons, masts and antennae for GSM)

(2005/C 271/11)

Language of the case: French

In Joined Cases C-544/03 and C-545/03: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decisions of 8 December 2003, received at the Court on 23 December 2003, in the proceedings between Mobistar SA (C-544/03) v Commune de Fléron, and Belgacom Mobile SA (C-545/03) v Commune de Schaerbeek — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, N. Colneric (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) must be interpreted as not precluding the introduction, by legislation of a national or local authority, of a tax on mobile and personal communications infrastructures used to carry on activities provided for in licences and authorisations, which applies without distinction to national providers of services and to those of other Member States and affects in the same way the provision of services within one Member State and the provision of services between Member States.

2.

Tax measures applying to mobile communications infrastructures are not covered by Article 3c of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications services, as amended, with regard to the implementation of full competition in telecommunications markets, by Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996, except where those measures favour, directly or indirectly, operators which have or have had exclusive or special rights to the detriment of new operators and appreciably affect the competitive situation.

---

(1)  OJ C 47, 21.02.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-40/04: (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein oikeus) Syuichi Yonemoto (1)

(Approximation of laws - Machines - Directive 98/37/EC - Compatibility of national law requiring the importer to verify that machinery accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity is safe)

(2005/C 271/12)

Language of the case: Finnish

In Case C-40/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Korkein oikeus ((Finland), made by order of 30 January 2004, received at the Court on 3 February 2004, in the criminal proceedings against Syuichi Yonemoto — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

Directive 98/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to machinery precludes the application of national provisions which require the importer in a Member State of a machine manufactured in another Member State, bearing the CE marking and accompanied by an EC declaration of conformity, to ensure that that machinery meets the essential health and safety requirements laid down by that directive.

2.

That directive does not preclude the application of national provisions which require the importer in a Member State of a machine manufactured in another Member State to: — ensure, before the machinery is delivered to the user, that it bears the CE marking and is accompanied by the EC declaration of conformity translated into the language or one of the languages of the Member State into which the machinery is imported, and instructions translated into the language or languages of that State; — provide, after the machinery has been delivered to the user, all appropriate information and cooperation to the national inspection authorities if it transpires that that machinery poses risks to safety or health, provided that such requirements do not amount to making the importer subject to the obligation to verify himself that the machinery complies with the essential health and safety requirements laid down by that directive.

3.

Article 10 EC and the third paragraph of Article 249 EC must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from imposing criminal penalties to ensure compliance with the obligations laid down by Directive 98/37, provided that those penalties are analogous to those applicable to infringements of national law of a similar nature and importance and are, in any event, effective, proportionate and deterrent.

---

(1)  OJ C 85, 03.04.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 15 September 2005

in Case C-58/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof: Antje Köhler v Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Place of taxable transactions - Supplies of goods effected on board cruise ships - Transport effected within the Community - Exclusion of tax where a stop is made in a third territory - Scope of the exclusion)

(2005/C 271/13)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-58/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 23 October 2003, received at the Court on 11 February 2004, in the proceedings pending before that court between Antje Köhler and Finanzamt Düsseldorf-Nord — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász and E. Levits, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General, M. Ferreira, Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 15 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

Stops made by a ship in the ports of a third country during which passengers may leave the ship, even for a short period, are 'stops in a third territory' within the meaning of Article 8(1)(c) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 amending Directive 77/388/EEC and introducing simplification measures with regard to value added tax.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30. 04. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-129/04 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État: Espace Trianon SA, Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) v Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM) (1)

(Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Persons to whom review procedures must be available - Tender by a consortium - Prohibition against members of a consortium bringing an action individually - Meaning of 'interest in obtaining a public contract')

(2005/C 271/14)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-129/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Conseil d'État (Belgium), made by decision of 25 February 2004, received at the Court on 9 March 2004, in the proceedings between Espace Trianon SA, Société wallonne de location-financement SA (Sofibail) and Office communautaire et régional de la formation professionnelle et de l'emploi (FOREM) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

1.

Article 1 of Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts is to be interpreted as not precluding national law from providing that only the members of a consortium without legal personality which has participated, as such, in a procedure for the award of a public contract and has not been awarded that contract, acting together, may bring an action against the decision awarding the contract and not just one of its members individually.

2.	The same is true if all the members of such a consortium act together but the application of one of its members is held inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30. 04. 2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-278/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2001/88/EC and 2001/93/EC - Animal health - Protection of pigs - Failure to transpose)

(2005/C 271/15)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-278/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Braun and A. Bordes) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: A. Tiemann) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 29 June 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/88/EC of 23 October 2001 and Commission Directive 2001/93/EC of 9 November 2001 amending Directive 91/630/EEC laying down minimum standards for the protection of pigs, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

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

---

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.9.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-288/04, Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien, AB v Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk (1)

(Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities - Staff regulations - Conditions of employment applicable to other servants - Local member of staff at the representation of the Commission in Austria - Tax treatment)

(2005/C 271/16)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-288/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Wien (Austria), made by decision of 28 June 2004, received at the Court on 6 July 2004, in the proceedings between AB and Finanzamt für den 6., 7. und 15. Bezirk — the Court (First Chamber) composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, K. Lenaerts, K. Schiemann, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and M. Ilešič, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

For the purposes of applying Articles 13 and 16 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, the decision of a Community institution defining the status of one of its servants and determining his conditions of employment is binding on national judicial and administrative authorities, so that they cannot make an independent classification of the employment relationship in question.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 09.10.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-427/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/16/EC - Trans-European networks - Interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system - Failure to implement)

(2005/C 271/17)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-427/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: W. Wils and G. Zavvos) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 5 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, M. Ilešič and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by not adopting all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/16/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 March 2001 on the interoperability of the trans-European conventional rail system, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.	Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6 of 08.01.2005

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-448/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals - Failure to implement within the required time-limit)

(2005/C 271/18)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-448/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. O'Reilly and A.-M. Rouchard-Joët) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to comply with obligations, brought on 27 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and M. Ilešič (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third country nationals, with the exception of Article 7 thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-462/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2001/40/EC - Mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals - Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)

(2005/C 271/19)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-462/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: C. O'Reilly and E. de March) v Italian Republic (Agent: I.M. Braguglia and A. Cingolo) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 October 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and M. Ilešič, Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by failing within the prescribed time-limit to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of third-country nationals, with the exception of Article 7 thereof, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.	Dismisses the remainder of the action;

3.	Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 6 of 08.01.2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 July 2005

in Case C-31/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2002/19/EC, 2002/20/EC and 2002/21/EC - Networks and services - Electronic communications - Common regulatory framework - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 271/20)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-31/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and S. Ramet) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 28 January 2005 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kűris (Rapporteur) and G. Arestis, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 July 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and administrative provisions required by Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) and Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under those directives;

2.	Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 2.4.2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 8 September 2005

in Case C-57/05: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/46/EC - Harmonisation of the laws of the Member States in respect of food supplements - Failure to implement within the prescribed time-limit)

(2005/C 271/21)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-57/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J.-P. Keppene) v French Republic (Agent: G. de Bergues, E. Belliard and R. Loosli-Surrans) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 9 February 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 September 2005, in which it:

1.

Declares that, By failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to food supplements, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

2.	Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 82 of 02.04.2005.

ORDER OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 21 June 2005

in Joined Cases C-483/00. C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy) in Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Tardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-483/00), and Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of: Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-485/00), and Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (C-486/00), and Cooperativa Nuova Latte Srl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-487/00), and Azienda Agricola Fermo e Gabriele Borini ss v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-488/00), and Giuseppe De Marchi and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-492/00), and Ferdinando Pavane.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-493/00), and Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Toscana (C-494/00), and Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani Soc. coop. arl and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-496/00), and Azienda Agricola Pietro Baita and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarinie.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-21/01) (1)

(Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Milk and milk products - Additional levy on milk - Regulations (EEC) Nos 3950/92 and 536/93 - Reference quantities - Correction a posteriori)

(2005/C 271/22)

Language of the case: Italian

In Case C-Joined Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio (Italy), made by decision of 6 July 2000 received at the Court on 29 December 2000 in the proceedings between Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Tardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-483/00), and Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of: Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-485/00), and Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), in the presence of Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica and Others (C-486/00), and Cooperativa Nuova Latte Srl v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-487/00), and Azienda Agricola Fermo e Gabriele Borini ss v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-488/00), and Giuseppe De Marchi and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-492/00), and Ferdinando Pavane.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-493/00), and Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Regione Toscana (C-494/00), and Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani Soc. coop. arl and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-496/00), and Azienda Agricola Pietro Baita and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarinie.a. v Azienda di Stato per gli interventi nel mercato agricolo (AIMA), Ministero del Tesoro, del Bilancio e della Programmazione Economica (C-21/01) — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric (Rapporteur) and M. J. N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 21 June 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

On a proper construction of Articles 1 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/97 of 28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products sects and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk products, it is not contrary to those provisions for a Member State, after checks have been carried out, to correct the individual reference quantities allocated to each producer and, after the unused reference quantities have been reallocated, to recalculate in consequence the additional levies payable, after the final date for payment of those levies for the milk marketing year concerned.

---

(1)  OJ C 118 of 21.04.2001.

Action brought on 15 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Finland

(Case C-284/05)

(2005/C 271/23)

Language of the case: Finnish

An action against the Republic of Finland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 July 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Wilms and P. Aalto, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.

declare that, by refusing to calculate and pay own resources which it has not established and made available to the Commission, contrary to Article 26 EC and Article 20 of the Community Customs Code and hence the Community customs tariff, in connection with the duty-free import of defence equipment in the years 1998 to 2002, and by refusing to pay default interest after failing to make own resources available to the Commission, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 2, 9, 10 and 11 of Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 (1) and of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000, (2) and

2.	order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Community's own resources consist inter alia of payments arising from the common customs tariff and other customs duties. Member States must establish the amount of duties as soon as they have the necessary information available and must credit those funds to the Community's own resources account within a prescribed period. They must pay interest thereon in the event of delays in crediting resources, as laid down in the Community legislation. Article 296 EC concerns strictly limited exceptional situations, and because of that limited nature those exceptions must not be interpreted broadly. A Member State which intends to rely on those exceptions must, in order to justify the fact that it has not complied with its obligations, provide proof that its activity does not exceed the limits of the situations mentioned above. Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 (3) suspending duties on defence equipment applies only from its entry into force, and it may not be applied retroactively before its entry into force.

Finland disputes in their entirety both the obligation to provide information and the obligation to pay and the obligation to pay default interest.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 155 of 7.6.1989, p. 1.

(2)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources, OJ L 130 of 31.5.2000, p. 1.

(3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment, OJ L 25 of 30.1.2003, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus by order of that court of 15 July 2005 in Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län v Lapin liitto

(Case C-289/05)

(2005/C 271/24)

Language of the case: Finnish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Rovaniemen hallinto-oikeus of 15 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Länsstyrelsen i Norrbottens län and Lapin liitto on the interpretation of point 1.7 of rule 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 (1) (now point 1.8 of rule 1 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003. (2)

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 of 28 July 2000 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 as regards eligibility of expenditure of operations co-financed by the Structural Funds, OJ 2000 L 193, p. 39.

(2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1145/2003 of 27 June 2003 amending Regulation (EC) No 1685/2000 as regards the rules of eligibility for co-financing by the Structural Funds, OJ 2003 L 160, p. 48.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Münster by order of that court of 5 July 2005 in Columbus Container Services B.V.B.A. & Co. v Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt

(Case C-298/05)

(2005/C 271/25)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Münster of 5 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 26 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Columbus Container Services B.V.B.A. & Co. and Finanzamt Bielefeld-Innenstadt on the following question:

Is it contrary to the provisions of Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now Article 43 EC) and Article 73(b) to 73(d) of the EC Treaty (now Articles 56 to 58 EC) for the legislation contained in Paragraph 20(2) and (3) of the Außensteuergesetz (Foreign Transaction Tax Law, hereinafter: the ‘AStG’) as amended by the Missbrauchsbekämpfungs- und Steuerbereinigungsgesetz (Law combating abuse and streamlining taxation) of 21 December 1993 (BGBl 1993 I, p. 2310) to exempt from double taxation the designated passive income of a foreign permanent establishment of a party with unlimited liability to tax in Germany, which would be liable to tax as controlled-foreign-corporation (CFC) income if the permanent establishment were a foreign corporation, by offsetting the foreign tax on earnings levied on the income rather than by exempting the income from taxation in Germany contrary to the double taxation convention between the Federal Republic of Germany and the Kingdom of Belgium of 11 April 1967?

Reference for a preliminary ruling of 13 July 2005 from the Arbitragehof (Belgium) in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers

(Case C-303/05)

(2005/C 271/26)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Arbitragehof (Court of Arbitration) (Belgium) of 13 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Advocaten voor de wereld, a non-profit-making association, and the Council of Ministers on the following questions:

1.

Is Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA (1) of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States compatible with Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union, under which framework decisions may be adopted only for the purpose of approximation of the laws and regulations of the Member States?

2.

Is Article 2(2) of Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of the Council of the European Union of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, in so far as it sets aside verification of the requirement of double criminality for the offences listed therein, compatible with Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union and, more specifically, with the principle of legality in criminal proceedings guaranteed by that provision and with the principle of equality and non-discrimination?

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 22 August 2005 by Fred Olsen SA against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber, Extended composition) in Case T-17/02 between Fred Olsen SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain

(Case C-320/05 P)

(2005/C 271/27)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 2005 by the Second Chamber, (Extended Composition), of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, in Case T-17/02, between Fred Olsen SA and the Commission of the European Communities, supported by the Kingdom of Spain, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 August 2005 by Fred Olsen SA, represented by R. Marín Correa, lawyer.

The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

(1)	Annul the contested judgment for infringement of the appellant's right to adduce the evidence relevant to its defence, or

(2)	In the alternative, set aside the contested judgment and adopt a fresh judgment annulling the Commission Decision of 25 July 2001 (1) on procedure NN 48/2001 concerning State aid, in the terms indicated in the application submitted by Fred Olsen SA.

(3)	Make such other order as it may deem fit, in particular an order as to costs and the costs at first instance to be imposed on the Commission of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

The first plea concerns the infringement of the defendant's right to adduce evidence relevant to the defence, which is subsumed within the right to a fair hearing enshrined in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights; it also raises a plea concerning the legally erroneous appraisal of the evidence actually adduced. That right was alleged to have been infringed by the refusal to allow various items of documentary evidence which were essential for substantiating the action for annulment; the defendant's essential pleas were not upheld precisely because they were not supported or evidenced. Likewise, The Court of First Instance is alleged to have distorted or disregarded the clear sense of evidence essential for underpinning the application for annulment.

2.

The second plea concerns the infringement of Article 253 of the EC Treaty on the ground that the statement of reasons on which the contested Decision was based was, in regard to essential aspects, inadequate. In particular, in relation to the essential question raised in the complaints which gave rise to the aforementioned decision concerning the lack of any contractual basis for the payments made to Transmediterránea in order to offset personnel restructuring costs.

3.

The third plea concerns the infringement of Article 88 EC and Article 19 of Regulation No 659/1999. It is alleged that the actual measures contained in the Commission Decision of 3 December 1997 adopted in relation to the contract for the provision of maritime services entered into between Transmediterránea and the Kingdom of Spain in 1978 entailed the abolition of the State aid scheme contained therein and precluded its continuance in relation to the Canary Isles lines.

4.

The fourth plea concerns the infringement of Article 86(2) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with the infringement of Article 173 thereof, inasmuch as the Court of First Instance exceeded its competences in determining the application for review and confirming the validity of the contested decision of its own motion as an appellate court. A plea is also raised concerning the infringement of Article 263 of the Treaty. In fact, in the contested judgment the Court of First Instance confirmed the validity of certain compensation for the performance of public service obligations; in doing so, not only did it disregard the terms of Article 86(2) of the Treaty and the case-law interpreting that provision (since the requirements contained in that provision governing the validity of the payments were not fulfilled) but it also exceeded its competences in basing that determination on justificatory grounds differing from those contained in the Decision and which, as a result of the allegations and evidence put forward, have been shown to be fraught with uncertainty.

---

(1)  OJ 2002, C 96, p. 4

Action brought on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

(Case C-323/05)

(2005/C 271/28)

Language of the case: English

An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 August 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Nicola Yerrell, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

1.	find that the United Kingdom has failed its obligations under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/95/EC of 3 December 2001 on general product safety (1) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof;

2.	condemn the United Kingdom to bear the costs of the procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 15 January 2004.

---

(1)  OJ L 11, 15.01.2002, p. 4

Appeal brought on 26 August 2005 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance in Case T-158/03 between Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-326/05 P)

(2005/C 271/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 June 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-158/03 between Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA and the Commission of the European Communtiies was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August 2005 by Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, I. Moreno-Tapia Rivas and J. Sabater Marotias, abogados.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

1.	Declare that this appeal is admissible and well-founded;

2.	Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 28 June 2005;

3.	Grant the application made at first instance seeking the annulment of Commission Decision 2003/308/EC (1) of 2 May 2003 concerning the non-inclusion of metalaxyl in Annex I to Council Directive 91/414/EEC; (2)

4.	In the alternative, refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for judgment;

5.	In any event, order the Commission to pay all the costs of the present proceedings as well as those incurred as a result of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance and, where appropriate, those relating to the interlocutory proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

1.

First, Industrias Químicas del Vallés, SA (IQV) takes the view that the Court of First Instance (CFI) has distorted the evidence in the proceedings in its analysis of the legal opinion of the Commission concerning the consequences of the withdrawal from the procedure for the evaluation of metalaxyl of the only notifier which submitted a complete dossier.

2.	Secondly, IQV takes the view that the CFI has erred in law by rejecting a plea of IQV solely on the basis of an extract from a document to which, as the CFI itself accepts, IQV never had access during the administrative procedure.

3.	Thirdly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law by incorrectly interpreting and applying to the present case the precautionary principle and the principle of proportionality and by upholding the decision of the Commission originally contested on the grounds of public health.

4.

Fourthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law in its interpretation and application to the present case of the relevant legal framework, in particular the provisions of Directive 91/414/EEC and Regulation 3600/92 on the procedure for the evaluation of active substances contained in plant protection products. In particular, IQV believes that the CFI (i) confused the terms ‘complete dossier’ and ‘additional information’, (ii) wrongly determined that, where there are multiple notifiers in respect of the same substance, each notifier must compile a complete dossier; and (iii) made an incorrect assessment of the role of the rapporteur Member State in the stages following preparation of the study.

5.

Fifthly, IQV submits that the CFI erred in law when it held that the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment by refusing to grant an extension of the time-limit for evaluating metalaxyl. In that regard, the CFI relied on a false premise and stated grounds which were inconsistent with the extensions granted by the Commission in the field concerned.

6.	Sixthly, IQV considers that the CFI gave contradictory and anomalous grounds for rejecting a plea of IQV on the basis of reasons for the decision which do not actually appear in the contested decision.

7.	Finally, IQV considers that the CFI infringed provisions governing the procedure by failing to have regard to part of the written submissions of IQV in the Report for the Hearing drawn up by the Judge-Rapporteur, without giving any grounds for so doing in the judgment.

---

(1)  OJ L 113 of 7.5.2003, p. 8.

(2)  OJ L 230 of 19.8.1991, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by decision of that court of 28 June 2005 in Finanzamt Dinslaken v Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger

(Case C-329/05)

(2005/C 271/30)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) of 28 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 2 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Finanzamt Dinslaken and Gerold Meindl, third party: Christine Meindl-Berger, on the following question:

Is there an infringement of Article 43 of the Treaty establishing the European Communities when a resident taxpayer is refused joint assessment to income tax with his spouse who lives in Austria, from whom he is not separated, on the ground that that spouse obtained both more than 10 % of joint income and more than DEM 24 000, when that income is tax-free in Austria?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hovrätten för övre Norrland by order of that court of 22 August 2005 in the case of Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg v Lokal åklagare I Haparanda

(Case C-330/05)

(2005/C 271/31)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Hovrätten för övre Norrland of 22 August 2005, received at the Court Registry on 6 September 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Per Fredrik Lennart Granberg and Lokal åklagare I Haparanda on the following questions:

1.

Does Article 9(3) of Directive 92/12/EEC (‘the Directive’) allow Member States generally to exempt heating oil from the application of Article 8 of the Directive, so that a Member State may provide that a private individual who purchases heating oil himself for his own use in another Member State where it was released for consumption, and transports it himself to the Member State of destination must pay excise duty there, regardless of the means of transport used to transport the heating oil?

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is Article 9(3) of the Directive compatible with the fundamental principles in the Treaty on free movement of goods and the principle of proportionality, in the light of the fact that the purpose of Article 9(3) of the Directive appears to be to deter private individuals from transporting mineral oils by providing for a derogation from the principle that where goods are purchased by private individuals for their own use and transported by them excise duty is to be charged in the Member State in which they are acquired, and is such a purpose compatible with the legal basis which the Council relied on for the Directive, or is Article 9(3) invalid?

3.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, does the transport by a private individual of 3 000 litres of heating oil in three ‘IBC’ containers, which can as such be approved for the commercial transport of dangerous goods including liquids, in the hold of a covered van constitute transport by atypical means within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the Directive?

4.

Is it compatible with Article 7(4) of the Directive for a Member State's legislation to provide that a private individual, who purchases heating oil himself for his own use in another Member State where it was released for consumption and moves it himself to the Member State of destination by atypical means of transport within the meaning of Article 9(3) of the Directive, must lodge a guarantee for payment of excise duty and carry a simplified accompanying document and a certificate of the lodging of a guarantee for excise duty when the goods are moved?

Appeal brought on 11 July 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities, lodged on 6 September 2005

(Case C-331/05 P)

(2005/C 271/32)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the order of 11 July 2005 of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-294/04 between Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 September 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., represented by Dr jur. Hans Kaltenecker, 5 rue Raffet, F-75016 Paris.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1.	set aside the order of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) of 11 July 2005 in Case T-294/04 (1) and either refer the case back to the Court of First Instance or order the defendant to pay to the claimant the amount of EUR 54 037,00;

2.	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant substantiates its appeal against the aforementioned order of the Court of First Instance by pleading misappraisal and misapplication of the rules of procedure and of Community law and non-observance of decisions of the Community courts:

1.	The Court of First Instance disregarded the fact that there is a legal and factual difference between costs of proceedings relating to court proceedings and costs arising in the context of a claim for compensation.

2.

The Court of First Instance provided no legally persuasive explanation as to why it more or less automatically excludes the lawyers' fees in complaint proceedings before the European mediator from the costs which can be claimed in compensation proceedings. It did not examine the factual and legal substantiation of the need for the involvement of a lawyer in the complaint proceedings brought by the appellant.

3.	The examination by the Court of First Instance of the question of the causal connection between the Commission's unlawful conduct and the damage alleged was superficial and the view reached by it was incorrect.

4.

The Court of First Instance erred in law in placing reliance on a judgment of the Court in order to substantiate its erroneous assertion that proceedings before the European Ombudsman as a matter of principle do not require a lawyer to be involved. That judgment related to the case of a Commission staff member which fell to be determined in accordance with the criteria under the rules on the employment of staff and had no inherent connection with the present case.

---

(1)  OJ C 229 of 17. 9. 2005.

Removal from the register of Case C-360/01 (1)

(2005/C 271/33)

Language of the case: Italian

By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-360/01: Italian Republic v Commission and Council of the European Communities.

---

(1)  OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.

Removal from the register of Case C-108/04 (1)

(2005/C 271/34)

Language of the case: Spanish

By order of 3 May 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-108/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia): Divina Cortiñas Yáñez v Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social (INSS), Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social (TGSS).

---

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.4.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-425/04 (1)

(2005/C 271/35)

Language of the case: Italian

By order of 6 June 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-425/04: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 300 of 04.12.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (1)

(2005/C 271/36)

Language of the case: French

By order of 29 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-458/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal administratif de Caen): Chambre de commerce et d'industrie de Flers-Argentan v Directeur des services fiscaux de la DIRCOFI Quest.

---

(1)  OJ C 19 of 22.01.2005.

Communication

(2005/C 271/37)

On 6 October 2005, Mr Hans Jung, Registrar of the Court of First Instance, left office and Mr Emmanuel Coulon, appointed Registrar of the Court of First Instance by decision of that Court of 5 July 2005 taken pursuant to the fourth paragraph of Article 224 of the EC Treaty, the fourth paragraph of Article 14 of the EAEC Treaty, and Articles 20 and 7(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance, took the oath and assumed office for a period of six years up to 5 October 2011.

Action brought on 21 July 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-300/05)

(2005/C 271/38)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	annul Regulation No 651/2005; (1)

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested regulation amends Regulation No 60/2004 (2) laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the new Member States. The applicant seeks its annulment, pleading first of all that the Commission lacked the power to adopt it. Specifically, the applicant submits that, under Article 41 of the 2003 Act of Accession, the Commission is empowered to adopt transitional measures if such measures are necessary to facilitate the transition from the regime which applied before the accession of the new Member States to the regime resulting from the application of the common agricultural policy. However, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not establish that the measures which it adopted were necessary and therefore it lacked the power to adopt them. The applicant also pleads that Article 41 of the Act of Accession clearly implies that only the adoption of measures beneficial to the new Member States is permitted. In the applicant's submission, however, the measures adopted by the new regulation do not benefit the new Member States but, on the contrary, are a burden to them.

In the same context, the applicant pleads that the reasons stated are inadequate, because it is not explained in a satisfactory manner what grounds led to the adoption of the contested regulation. The applicant further pleads breach of the principle of proportionality inasmuch as, in its view, the Commission has not demonstrated that the adoption of any measure at all was necessary while, in any event, the Commission could have adopted other measures to avoid the creation of sugar surpluses in the new Member States without having to adopt measures such as those contained in the contested regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the contested regulation infringes the principle prohibiting retroactive legislation, since it imposes obligations which relate to quantities which had already accumulated before its entry into force.

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission has infringed the principle of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination because, it maintains, the contested regulation provides for different treatment between undertakings of the new Member States and those of the old Member States in relation to the consequences of a similar, if not identical, situation.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2005 of 28 April 2005 amending Regulation (EC) No 60/2004 laying down transitional measures in the sugar sector by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 108, 29.4.2005, p. 3).

(2)  OJ No L 9, 15.1.2004, p. 8.

Action brought on 2 August 2005 — Philippe Guigard v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-301/05)

(2005/C 271/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Philippe Guigard (Paris, France) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Jaume, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	hold that the European Community is non-contractually liable in respect of the unlawful conduct of the Commission following the Commission's failure, in irregular circumstances, to renew the contract of employment between it and the applicant;

—	order the defendant to pay damages and interest in compensation for both the applicant's professional loss (of an initial indicative amount of EUR 350 000) and his non-material loss (in an amount left to the fair and just assessment of the Court);

—	order the defendant to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action seeks compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant because of the Commission's failure, in circumstances which the applicant considers irregular, to renew the contract of employment which he had concluded with the defendant in the context of technical cooperation between the European Community and the Government of Niger.

It should be noted in that regard that the applicant is an expert on the EuropAid list who, since 1992, has carried out a number of tasks as a contractual employee of the Commission. On 7 March 2002, he signed a contract of employment with the Commission for twelve months as a technical assistant with the Ministry for Equipment and Transport in Niamey. The task proceeded satisfactorily. The renewal of that contract was the subject of an official enquiry by the Ministry in its capacity as national authorising officer of the European Development Fund (EDF).

In support of his claims, the applicant submits, firstly, that there has been an infringement of the IV Lomé Convention, in that the Commission did not comply with the division of powers between the national authorising officer and the Head of the Delegation, the latter not being able to oppose the renewal of the contract, since Article 313.2(k) of the Convention gives sole jurisdiction to the national authorising officer of the EDF in matters of recruitment of experts in technical assistance, the only obligation being to inform the Head of the Delegation thereof. Furthermore, and in any event, the Commission did not comply with the obligatory time-limit of 30 days laid down in Article 314 of the Convention within which it was to reply to the national authorising officer's request concerning the renewal of the contract.

Finally, the applicant claims that there was an infringement of the principles of sound administration, of the duty of care and of the protection of legitimate expectations.

Action brought on 1 August 2005 — Balabanis and Le Dour v Commission

(Case T-305/05)

(2005/C 271/40)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): Panagiotis Balabanis (Brussels, Belgium), Olivier Le Dour (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: X. Martin, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission's decision not to take account of the applicants' merits for the 2004 promotion exercise and the decisions not to promote them to a higher grade in their category;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In this case the applicants, who were appointed probationary officials on 16 March 2002 and who, in accordance with the new wording of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, completed the minimum of two years in their grade as from 16 March 2004, thus contest the Appointing Authority's refusal to consider them as eligible for the 2004 promotion exercise and to promote them to a higher grade in their category for the same exercise.

In support of their claims the applicants assert that Article 45 of the Staff Regulations has been infringed. In accordance with that new provision the probationary period must be taken into account for the purpose of calculating the minimum seniority in grade.

Action brought on 10 August 2005 — Scippacercola and Terezakis/Commission

(Case T-306/05)

(2005/C 271/41)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Isabella Scippacercola and Ioannis Terezakis (Brussels, Belgium) [represented by: A. Krystallidis, lawyer]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—

The annulment of the Commission Decision of 2 May 2005 received by the Applicants on 31 May 2005 refusing to open an in-depth investigation of the costs and revenues of AIA SA related to the provision of passenger security services, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services in order to establish whether the charges levied by the Athens International Airport SA constitute an abuse of a dominant position;

—	an order that the costs of, and occasioned by these proceedings be borne by the Respondent.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are individual users of the Athens International Airport of Spata. They contest the Commission's final Decision pursuant to Article 7(2) of Regulation 773/2004 (1) not to open an in-depth investigation of the allegedly excessive airport charges levied by Athens International Airport with regard to passenger security, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services.

The applicants invoke an error of law and a manifest error in the appreciation of facts in so far as the Commission considered that the passenger security controls do not constitute an economic activity within the meaning of Article 82 EC and that the car parking services do not constitute a relevant market.

The applicants further allege that the Commission did not carry out a proper comparison of Athens International Airport of Spata's costs and revenues related to the provision of security services, passenger terminal facilities and car parking services as it did not verify the accuracy and substance of the information supplied by Athens International Airport of Spata.

Furthermore, the applicants submit that the Commission made an error of law by not identifying (i) the use of different rates for passenger terminal facility charges on international and domestic flights and (ii) the levying of a terminal facility charge and a security charge on scheduled flights which are not levied on charter flights.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in that the Commission did not indicate the costs and revenues of Athens International Airport of Spata on which it based its conclusion that Athens International Airport of Spata does not engage in excessive pricing.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty, OJ L 123 of 27 April 2004, p. 18.

Action brought on 12 August 2005 — ASTEC Global Consultancy/Commission

(Case T-310/05)

(2005/C 271/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): ASTEC Global Consultancy Limited (Dublin, Ireland) [represented by: B. O'Connor, solicitor and I. Carreño, lawyer]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—	Annul the European Commission's Decision of 25 July 2005 (Reference no. AIDCO/F3/ACH D (2005) 19574), rejecting the applicant's application to participate in Lot 3 of the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//119860/C/SV multi;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, acting as consortium leader, applied on 15 April 2005 for Lot 3 of the Framework contract in the context of a re-launch of the Commission procurement procedure EuropeAid//119860/C/SV/multi. One of the other members of the applicant's consortium was Austroconsult Ges.m.b.H. That company was also a partner in another consortium applying for the same lot. On 31 May 2005 Austroconsult formally withdrew from that other consortium.

By the contested Decision the Commission refused to short-list the applicant's application on the grounds that it did not comply with the Procurement Notice since Austroconsult was also present in another application.

In support of its request to annul the contested Decision the applicant contends that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements in procurement procedures, since any conflict of interest due to Austroconsult's participation in two consortiums had been resolved by its withdrawal from the other consortium. In the same context, the applicant alleges in the alternative that Austroconsult could not have been considered a valid member of the other consortium, since its formal letter in the application package was not dated.

The applicant further alleges that the Commission infringed the principles of equal treatment, sound administration and due diligence, as it failed to investigate Austroconsult's withdrawal from the other consortium, if it had doubts about it, and failed to inform the applicant of its concerns. The applicant considers that its exclusion without any further clarification was disproportionate and in violation of good administration.

Finally, the applicant alleges that by establishing a short-list of only six candidates and continuing the tender procedure, the Commission has infringed the rules set down in the tender notice requiring a minimum of eight candidates. It also considers that it has been discriminated against, in that in the original launch and in the first re-launch of the tender procedure, in both of which the applicant had been successful, the rule requiring a short list of at least eight candidates had been observed, contrary to what has been the case at the second re-launch, from which the applicant was excluded.

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Rounis v Commission

(Case T-311/05)

(2005/C 271/43)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant(s): George Rounis (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Boigelot, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Forms of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	annul the Commission's decision refusing the transfer of part of the applicant's salary intended to pay the university fees for his daughter for the academic year 2003-2004;

—	award compensation for material and non-material damage on account of the various serious errors committed at different levels, assessed ex aequo et bono EUR 13 582.88 together with interest at 5.25 % until full payment, subject to any increase or decrease in the course of the proceedings;

—	in any event order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, who also brought Case T-17/01 (1), contests, in particular, the Appointing Authority's refusal to transfer to the United Kingdom the 35 % of his net monthly salary intended to pay the fees for his daughter's university studies.

He states, in that regard, that he provided evidence of the actual expenses in the United Kingdom and that the right to make such a transfer has been conferred on him since the judgment of 16 May 2002, supplemented by the judgment of 30 September 2002, delivered in the case cited above.

In support of his claims, the applicant alleges an infringement of Articles 62 and 67 of the Staff Regulations, together with Article 17 of Annexes VII and XIII thereof, also in the version resulting from the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations of 1 May 2004. He also alleges that general principles of law have been disregarded, such as the principles of sound administration and management, the principle of the protection of legitimate hopes and expectations, the duty to have regard for the welfare of employees and the principles which require the Appointing Authority to adopt a decision solely on the basis of grounds which are relevant and which are not vitiated by manifest errors of assessment.

---

(1)  Judgments of 16 May 2002 (ECR-SC IA-63; II-301) and 30 September 2003 (ECR-SC IA-221; II-1079).

Action brought on 9 August 2005 — Commission v E. Alexiadou

(Case T-312/05)

(2005/C 271/44)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties:

Applicant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: Dimitrios Triantafillou and Dimos Nikopoulos, lawyer)

Defendant(s): Effrosini Alexiadou

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 26 068.11, corresponding to the principal sum owed of EUR 23 036.31 and the sum of EUR 3 031.80 owed by way of default interest from 1 March 2003 to 31 August 2005;

—	order the defendant to pay to the Commission interest amounting to EUR 3.31 per day until the entire amount due has been paid in full;

—	order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the European Commission, concluded with the defendant, as member of a consortium, Contract No G1ST-CT-2002-50227-PLASMALEATHER concerning a specific research and technological development programme relating to cold plasma treatment for water-repellent leather.

The contract provided that the Commission would contribute financially to the proper performance of the project, by payment of a sum which would not exceed EUR 832 362. Within that framework the Commission paid to the defendant, through the coordinator of the consortium, an advance of EUR 23 036.31.

However, immediately after receipt of that sum the defendant declared to the coordinator that she had stopped the production of leather articles, had decided to move her business activities to a different line, could not guarantee successful conclusion of the project activities and considered that it would be better to leave the project at the beginning of all activities.

The defendant was repeatedly given notice to pay, but she did not return the amount of the advance although, as the coordinator has certified, she did not participate at all in the research and consequently did not use the advance for such a purpose.

By its action, the Commission seeks payment of the aforementioned sum owed and the interest due thereon.

Action brought on 12 August 2005 — Republic of Cyprus v Commission

(Case T-316/05)

(2005/C 271/45)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Cyprus (represented by: Petros Kliridis)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should:

—	annul Regulation No 832/2005; (1)

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant puts forward the same pleas in law and main arguments that it has put forward in Case T-300/05.

---

(1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ No L 138, 1.6.2005, p. 3).

Action brought on 16 August 2005 — Kustom Musical Amplification/OHIM

(Case T-317/05)

(2005/C 271/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Kustom Musical Amplification Inc. (Cincinnati, USA) [represented by: M. Edenborough, barrister and T.Bamford, solicitor]

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

Form of order sought

—	Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal No 1035/2004-2, or alternatively, annul partially such that the specification of goods is restricted to ‘Stringed instruments, namely professional, electric guitars’ in class 15;

—	Remit the Community trade mark application No 3 206 372 to the office so as to allow the said application to proceed to advertisement;

—	Order the respondent to pay to the appellant/applicant the costs incurred by the appellant/applicant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the prosecution before the examiner.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The three dimensional mark representing the body of the so-called Beast guitar for goods in class 15 (stringed instruments, namely guitars) (Community trade mark application No 3 206 372)

Decision of the examiner: Rejection of the trade mark application.

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

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94.

Action brought on 25 August 2005 — AstraZeneca/Commission

(Case T-321/05)

(2005/C 271/47)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant(s): AstraZeneca AB (Sodertalje, Sweden) and AstraZeneca plc (London, United Kingdom) [represented by: M. Brealey, QC, M. Hoskins, barrister, F. Murphy, solicitor]

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

—	Quash the European Commission's Decision of 15 July 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty and Article 54 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/A.37.507/F3 — AstraZeneca);

—	order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these legal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested Decision the Commission fined both applicants EUR 46 000 000 and fined the first applicant a further EUR 14 000 000 for infringements of Article 82 EC and Article 54 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area. The Commission found that, beginning in 1993, the applicants engaged in a pattern of deliberate misrepresentation to patent attorneys, national courts and patent offices in order to obtain supplementary protection certificates to which they knew they were not entitled to for their patented product ‘omeprazole’, the active substance in the applicants' ‘Losec’ medicinal product. It also found that in 1998/1999 the applicants operated a strategy of selectively withdrawing their ‘Losec’ capsules, replacing them with ‘Losec’ tablets, and requesting the deregistration of the marketing authorisation for the capsules in Denmark, Norway and Sweden. The Decision considers that both infringements were committed with the intention of unfairly restricting competition from generics and parallel imports.

The applicants challenge the Commission's Decision on several levels. They allege first of all that the Commission mistakenly defined the relevant market as being only that of proton pump inhibitors, used for the treatment of gastrointestinal acid related diseases, and excluded histamine receptor antagonists from the relevant market. This finding also influences the Commission's finding on dominance, since, according to the applicants, the contested Decision does not consider whether the applicants would still be in a dominant position if histamine receptor antagonists were included in the relevant market.

The applicants further challenge the Commission's findings of infringements both on legal and factual grounds. Regarding the alleged misrepresentations with respect to patents, the applicants consider that such misleading representations made in the course of applications for intellectual property rights cannot in law amount to an abuse unless and until the dishonestly obtained rights are enforced or are capable of being enforced. They also consider that Article 82 EC, properly interpreted, did not impose on them an obligation to maintain a marketing authorisation for a product they no longer marketed, merely because it would make it easier for generics and parallel traders to compete with it.

The applicants also challenge the Commission's findings of facts on both infringements. They submit that the Commission failed to adduce evidence proving to the correct legal standard the alleged abuse of intellectual property rights and that, furthermore, there was no strategy for selectively changing from ‘Losec’ capsules to tablets or selectively withdrawing marketing authorisations for the capsules.

Action brought on 25 August 2005 — Republic of Estonia v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-324/05)

(2005/C 271/48)

Language of the case: Estonian

Parties

Applicant(s): Republic of Estonia (represented by: Lembit Uibo, Agent)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant(s) claim(s) that the Court should Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 (OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The object of the application is the annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia. (1)

The applicant relies on the following claims:

—	The adoption of Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 was in breach of essential procedural requirements: the principle of joint responsibility, since commissioner Fischer Boel was empowered to determine the amount of sugar to be eliminated before the adoption of the regulation;

—

As regards the provisions in application of the EC Treaty, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 infringes Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, which is its legal basis, since: (a) contrary to Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 includes, in determining the excess quantity of sugar, the quantity of sugar held in private households; (b) contrary to Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 60/2004, the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia;

—

Breach of the obligation to state reasons laid down in Article 253 EC, since in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 no reasons are given with respect to the inclusion in the calculation of the amount of excess stocks of sugar held in private households and with respect to the failure to take into account the circumstances of stockpiling;

—	Breach of the principle of sound administration, since when adopting Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 the Commission did not take into account the specific circumstances of stockpiling in Estonia, including the EU's own contribution to increased imports of sugar;

—	Breach of the principle of good faith, since no measures of any sort were adopted to deter increased exports from the EU to Estonia, and Estonia's countermeasures were blocked;

—

Breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since the calculation of excess sugar stocks laid down by Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 discriminates against Estonia compared to States which have previously acceded, and any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would bring about discrimination against Estonian undertakings or households compared to the corresponding groups in States which have previously acceded or compared to undertakings in the so-called old Member States;

—	Infringement of the right to property of undertakings and/or private households, since any measures implementing Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 would impose a restriction on them which could not be justified by a legitimate aim and would be a disproportionate interference with their rights;

—	Breach of the principle of proportionality, since the obligation laid down in Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 to eliminate a quantity of sugar corresponding to the amount of sugar held in private households does not fulfil a legitimate objective and is a disproportionate interference with their rights.

---

(1)  OJ L 138 of 1.6.2005, p. 3.

Action brought on 8 September 2005 — Kingdom of Spain v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-341/05)

(2005/C 271/49)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: J.M. Rodríguez Cárcamo, abogado del Estado)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—	annul the inclusion of Ceuta and Melilla in the L01 category in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products;

—	order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is brought against Commission Regulation (EC) No 909/2005 of 16 June 2005 fixing the export refunds on milk and milk products, (1) in so far as it excludes Ceuta and Melilla as destinations qualifying for export refunds for milk products in general. The objective of such an exclusion is to put an end to certain unlawful commercial transactions consisting in exporting certain products to those two destinations and collecting the relevant refund, before processing the products and re-importing them into Community territory without paying any customs duties.

In support of its claims, the Kingdom of Spain invokes:

—

infringement of Article 31(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk and milk products, (2) either because there is no justification for the contested measure in any of the reasons stated in Article 31 or, in the alternative, because the measure is based on facts which have not been proved.

—

infringement of Article 31(2) of that regulation on the ground that account has not been taken of the nature of the product. It is stated in that regard that, even supposing that the elimination of fraud could justify the abolition of refunds for a specific destination, the measure was adopted with account being taken only of the destination of the export, affecting without distinction all products whose export to Ceuta and Melilla was eligible for a refund. It is also claimed that there is an infringement of the same provision on account of the discrimination between producers to which the contested measure is said to give rise.

—	infringement of the principle of non-discrimination.

—	misuse of powers.

---

(1)  OJ L 154 of 17.6.2005, p. 10.

(2)  OJ L 160 of 26.6.1999, p. 48.

The new Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal take the oath

(2005/C 271/50)

Appointed Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal by the Council Decision of 22 July 2005 appointing Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1) with effect from 1 October 2005, Ms Boruta, Mr Gervasoni, Mr Kanninen, Mr Kreppel, Mr Mahoney, Mr Tagaras and Mr van Raepenbusch took the oath before the Court of Justice on 5 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 28.7.2005, p. 28.

Election of the President of the Civil Service Tribunal

(2005/C 271/51)

At a meeting on 6 October 2005, in accordance with Article 3 of the Council Decision of 22 July 2005 appointing Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (1) and Article 4(1) of Annex I to the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice, (2) the Judges of the Civil Service Tribunal elected Mr Mahoney President of the Tribunal for the period from 6 October 2005 to 5 October 2008.

---

(1)  OJ L 197, 28.7.2005, p. 28.

(2)  OJ L 333, 9.11.2004, p. 9.

(2005/C 271/52)

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

OJ C 257, 15.10.2005

Past publications

OJ C 243, 1.10.2005

OJ C 229, 17.9.2005

OJ C 217, 3.9.2005

OJ C 205, 20.8.2005

OJ C 193, 6.8.2005

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex:http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

CELEX:http://europa.eu.int/celex