Notice

An information note addressed to the national courts concerning the preliminary ruling procedure before the Court of Justice was communicated to them by the competent national authorities in 1996. That note having shown itself to be of use in practice, the Court has taken steps to bring it up to date in the light of experience and now considers it appropriate to distribute it by means of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

INFORMATION NOTE

on references from national courts for a preliminary ruling

(2005/C 143/01)

The role of the Court in the preliminary ruling procedure

The decision to submit a question to the Court

The originator of the question

References on interpretation

References on determination of validity

The stage at which to submit a question for a preliminary ruling

The form of the reference for a preliminary ruling

The effects of the reference for a preliminary ruling on the national proceedings

Costs and legal aid

Communication between the national court and the Court of Justice

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 26 April 2005

in Case C-494/01: Commission of the European Communities v Ireland (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Waste management - Directive 75/442/EEC, as amended by Directive 91/156/EC - Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14)

(2005/C 143/02)

Language of the case: English

In Case C-494/01, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 20 December 2001, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Wainwright and X. Lewis) v Ireland (Agent: D. O'Hagan, assisted by P. Charleton SC and A. Collins BL) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, J. P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, U. Lõhmus and E. Levits, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 56 of 02.03.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 17 March 2005

in Case C-294/02: Commission of the European Communities v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA and Others (1)

(Arbitration clause - Designation of the Court of First Instance - Jurisdiction of the Court of Justice - Parties in liquidation - Capacity to be parties to legal proceedings - Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 - Insolvency proceedings - Recovery of advances - Reimbursement under a clause of the contract - Joint and several liability - Recovery of sums paid but not due)

(2005/C 143/03)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-294/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M G. Wilms, assisted by R. Karpenstein) v AMI Semiconductor Belgium BVBA, formerly Alcatel Microelectronics NV, established in Oudenaarde (Belgium), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), A-Consult EDV-Beratungsgesellschaft mbH (in liquidation), established in Vienna (Austria), (Rechtsanwalt: E. Roehlich), Intracom SA Hellenic Telecommunications & Electronic Industry, established in Athens (Greece), (avocats: M. Lienemeyer, U. Zinsmeister and D. Waelbroeck), ISION Sales + Services GmbH & Co. KG (in liquidation), established in Hamburg (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: H. Fialski and T. Delhey), Euram-Kamino GmbH, established in Hallbergmoos (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz), HSH Nordbank AG, formerly Landesbank Kiel Girozentrale, established in Kiel (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: B. Treibmann and E. Meincke), and InterTeam GmbH (in liquidation), established in Itzehoe (Germany), (Rechtsanwälte: M. Hallweger and R. Lutz) — application under Article 238 EC brought on 12 August 2002 — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-341/02: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 96/71/EC - Posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services - Undertakings in the construction industry - Minimum wages - Comparison between the minimum wage established by the provisions of the Member State to the territory of which a worker is posted and the remuneration actually paid by his employer established in another Member State - Failure to take into account, as constituent elements of the minimum wage, all of the allowances and supplements paid by the employer established in another Member State)

(2005/C 143/04)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-341/02, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Sack and H. Kreppel) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and A. Tiemann) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 25 September 2002, — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), K. Lenaerts, S. von Bahr and K. Schiemann, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 305 of 07.12.2002.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Grand Chamber)

of 26 April 2005

in Case C-376/02 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)

(Turnover tax - Common system of value added tax - Article 17 of Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC - Deduction of input tax - Amendment of national legislation - Retroactive effect - Principles of the protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty)

(2005/C 143/05)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-376/02: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands), made by decision of 18 October 2002, received at the Court on 21 October 2002, in the proceedings pending before that court between Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ and Staatssecretaris van Financiën — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas (Rapporteur), R. Silva de Lapuerta and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, P. Kūris, E. Juhász, G. Arestis and M. Ilešič, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.01.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-25/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach v HE (1)

(Sixth VAT Directive - Construction of a dwelling by two spouses forming a community which does not itself perform an economic activity - Use of one room by one of the co-owners for business purposes - Status of taxable person - Right to deduct - Rules governing exercise of that right - Invoicing requirements)

(2005/C 143/06)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-25/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) made by decision of 29 August 2002, received at the Court on 23 January 2003, in the proceedings pending before that court between Finanzamt Bergisch Gladbach and HE — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General, K. Sztranc, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

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, both in its original version and following amendment by Council Directive 91/680/EEC of 16 December 1991 supplementing the common system of value added tax and amending Directive 77/388/EEC with a view to the abolition of fiscal frontiers, is to be interpreted as follows:

(1)  OJ C 70 of 22.3.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-140/03 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 43 EC and 48 EC - Opticians - Conditions of establishment - Establishment and operation of opticians' shops - Restrictions - Justification - Principle of proportionality)

(2005/C 143/07)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-140/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Patakia) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 27 March 2003 — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-163/03: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 80/68/EEC - Protection of groundwater against pollution caused by certain dangerous substances - Articles 3, 4 and 5 - Directive 91/689/EEC - Hazardous waste - Article 2(1) and Article 6(1)

(2005/C 143/08)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-163/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valero Jordana and M. Konstantinidis) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: E. Skandalou) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 8 April 2003 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 135 of 07.06.2003

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preliminary rulings from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03) Novartis AG and Others v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom, and Ministre de l'Économie v Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. (1)

(Patent law - Medicinal products - Supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products)

(2005/C 143/09)

Languages of the case: English and French

In Joined Cases C-207/03 and C-252/03: References for preliminary rulings under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Chancery Division (Patents Court) (United Kingdom, C-207/03), and from the Cour administrative (Luxembourg, C-252/03), made by decisions of 6 May and 3 June 2003, received at the Court on 14 May and 13 June 2003, in the proceedings between Novartis AG (C-207/03), University College London, Institute of Microbiology and Epidemiology and Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for the United Kingdom and between Ministre de l'Économie (C-252/03) and Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., formerly Cor Therapeutics Inc. — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General, M. Múgica Arzamendi, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

In so far as an authorisation to place a medicinal product on the market issued by the Swiss authorities and automatically recognised by the Principality of Liechtenstein under that State's legislation is the first authorisation to place that product on the market in one of the States of the European Economic Area, it constitutes the first authorisation to place the product on the market within the meaning of Article 13 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, as it is to be read for the purposes of the application of the Agreement on the European Economic Area.

(1)  OJ C 158 of 05.07.2003, OJ C 200 of 23.08.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 21 April 2005

in Case C-267/03 Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg (1)

(Directive 83/189/EEC - Notification procedure in the field of technical standards and regulations - Obligation to notify draft technical regulations - National legislation on gaming and lotteries - Gaming machines - Prohibition on the organisation of games on gaming machines which do not pay out winnings directly - Machines of the ‘wheel of fortune’ type - Definition of 'technical regulation')

(2005/C 143/10)

Language of the case: Swedish

In Case C-267/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden), made by decision of 10 April 2003, received at the Court on 18 June 2003, in the criminal proceedings against Lars Erik Staffan Lindberg — the Court: (Second Chamber) composed of C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, R. Schintgen, G. Arestis and J. Klučka, Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General, H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, gave a judgment on 21 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 213 of 06.09.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(First Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-385/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG (1)

(Export refunds - Misdeclaration - Meaning of ‘request’ - Sanction - Requirements)

(2005/C 143/11)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-385/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 30 July 2003, received at the Court on 12 September 2003, in the proceedings between Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas and Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG — the Court (First Chamber), composed of P. Jann, President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, E. Juhász (Rapporteur) and E. Levits, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; K. Sztranc, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

The first and second subparagraphs of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, are to be interpreted as meaning that wrong information contained in a document referred to in Article 3(5) of that regulation, that is, the export declaration or another document used for export, and capable of leading to a refund in excess of the refund applicable, gives rise to the imposition of the sanction prescribed by Article 11. That rule applies even if, in connection with the application for payment referred to in Article 47 of that regulation, it is expressly stated that payment of the export refund is not sought for certain products covered by that document.

(1)  OJ C 275 of 15.11.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Second Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-441/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC - Conservation of wild birds - Conservation of natural habitats - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

(2005/C 143/12)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-441/03: Action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 16 October 2003, Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. van Beek) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H.G. Sevenster and N.A.J. Bel) — the Court (Second Chamber), composed of C.W.A. Timmermans, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, P. Kūris and G. Arestis, Judges; J. Kokott, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Third Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-519/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Framework agreement on parental leave - Substitution of maternity leave for parental leave - Date from which an individual right to parental leave is granted)

(2005/C 143/13)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-519/03 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 12 December 2003 — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), acting for the President of the Third Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, S. von Bahr, U. Lõhmus and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 35 of 07.02.2004, p. 5.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-22/04 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Fishing vessels - Establishment of a satellite-based position monitoring system - Failure to transpose within the prescribed periods)

(2005/C 143/14)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-22/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M Condou-Durande and T. van Rijn) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: A. Samoni-Rantou and S. Chala) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 26 January 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, J. Makarczyk and P. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 85 of 3.4.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-146/04: Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 2000/69/EC and 2001/81/EC - Atmospheric pollutants - Failure to transpose)

(2005/C 143/15)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-146/04, action for failure to fulfil obligations brought on 19 March 2004 under Article 226 EC, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beel and G. Valero Jordana) against Kingdom of the Netherlands (agents: H.G. Sevenster and J. van Bakel), the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr and J. Malenkovský, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger, Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 14 April 2005 in which it:

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fourth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2001/80/EC - non-transposition)

(2005/C 143/16)

Language of the case: Dutch

In Case C-171/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: M. van Beek and G. Valero Jordana) v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: H. Sevenster and J. van Bakel) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 5 April 2004 — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of Chamber, N. Colneric and E. Juhász (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 14 April 2005

in Case C-299/04: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/77/EC - Markets for electronic communications networks and services - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 143/17)

Language of the case: Greek

In Case C-299/04, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. Christoforou and K. Mojzesowicz) v Hellenic Republic (Agent: N. Dafniou) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 14 July 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and J. Malenovský, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 14 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11. 09. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Fifth Chamber)

of 28 April 2005

in Case C-329/04: Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany (1)

(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2000/43/EC - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 143/18)

Language of the case: German

In Case C-329/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: D. Martin and H. Kreppel) v Federal Republic of Germany (Agent: C.-D Quassowski) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC, brought on 29 July 2004 — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 239 of 25. 09. 2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 28 April 2005

in Case C-375/04: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to tranpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 143/19)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-375/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 1 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

(Sixth Chamber)

of 28 April 2005

in Case C-376/04: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2002/58/EC - Electronic communications - Processing of personal data - Protection of privacy - Protection of natural persons - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2005/C 143/20)

Language of the case: French

In Case C-376/04 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Shotter) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovits) — action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 2 September 2004 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of A. Borg Barthet, President of the Chamber, U. Lõhmus (Rapporteur) and A. Ó Caoimh, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 28 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 262 of 23.10.2004.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korsholms tingsrätt by order of that court of 18 February 2005 in Teemu Hakala v Oy L Simons Transport AB

(Case C-93/05)

(2005/C 143/21)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Korsholms tingsrätt (Sweden) of 18 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Teemu Hakala and Oy L Simons Transport AB on the following question:

Is a pay scheme which is based on distance covered, in circumstances such as those of this case, contrary to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (1) and in particular to Article 10 thereof?

(1)  of 20 December 1985 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 1).

Action brought on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-112/05)

(2005/C 143/22)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by F. Benyon and G. Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Federal Republic of Germany's Gesetz über die Überführung der Anteilsrechte an der Volkswagen Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung in private Hand (Law on the privatisation of equity in the Volkswagenwerk limited company; hereinafter ‘VW-Gesetz’) limits, by way of derogation from the provisions of the Aktiengesetz (Company Law), each shareholder's voting rights to a maximum of 20 % of the share capital. The Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Lower Saxony are each entitled to appoint two members of the supervisory board of VW AG, provided that they hold shares in the company. Resolutions of the general shareholders' meeting of Volkswagen AG, for which a majority of 75 % of the share capital represented at the time of voting is required under the Aktiengesetz, require a majority of more than 80 % of the share capital represented.

Those provisions are an infringement of the free movement of capital under Article 56 EC and the freedom of establishment under Article 43 EC.

The Annex to Directive 88/361/EEC includes among movements of capital not only investment in shares and securities, but also participation in undertakings or their acquisition in full.

The Court of Justice has previously held that the sphere of protection afforded by the free movement of capital covers any legislation which is liable to dissuade investors in other Member States from investing in a company and participating in its management and control. The aim of the prohibition in Article 56 EC is not merely to prevent discrimination against foreign market participants in relation to their domestic counterparts, but it applies to any measure which inhibits the exercise of the free movement of capital in any way. In the light of the Court's findings in relation to the prohibition of restrictions under Article 56 EC, the State-ordered ceiling on voting rights in the VW-Gesetz constitutes an indirect restriction on earnings and thus an infringement of the free movement of capital.

At general shareholders' meetings — at which the voting capital is not usually fully represented — the shares held by the Land Lower Saxony give it the 20 % of votes needed to block resolutions requiring more than 80 % of the capital represented. That provision of the VW-Gesetz constitutes an impediment by the exercise of State power, since it enables the Land to prevent unwanted changes to the status quo in so far as such changes have to be brought in under the category of resolutions for which, according to the Aktiengesetz, a higher quorum is required.

The right of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Land Lower Saxony to make appointments to the supervisory board under the VW-Gesetz, notwithstanding the provisions of the Aktiengesetz, restricts the rights of other shareholders to appropriate representation on the company's supervisory board. Since, as the Court has held on several occasions, a provision which restricts the acquisition of shares, or in some other way restricts the possibility of actual participation in the management of a company or in its control, constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, that statutory provision constitutes a restriction on the free movement of capital, contrary to Community law.

A restriction on the free movement of capital is justified only on the grounds referred to in Article 58 EC or on so-called overriding grounds relating to the public interest. According to the criteria established by the Court, such public interest measures must not be discriminatory, must be objectively necessary and must be proportionate in relation to the objective being pursued. In particular, those grounds must apply to all persons or undertakings pursuing an activity in the territory of the host Member State. General financial interests which are outside the scope of those grounds in Article 58 EC relating to tax law, as well as other economic aims of the Member State cannot, according to settled case-law, justify any restriction prohibited under the EC Treaty. By the standards of Article 56 EC and relevant case-law, the provisions of the aforementioned VW-Gesetz constitute indirect restrictions on earnings for which there is no relevant justification under Community law.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg by order of that court of 2 March 2005 in Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-120/05)

(2005/C 143/23)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Finance Court) (Germany) of 2 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heinrich Schulze GmbH & Co. KG i.L represented by the liquidator, Ravensberger Honig GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, on the following questions:

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 5.

Appeal brought on 15 March 2005 (fax: 11 March 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) in Case T-334/03 between Deutsche Post Euro Express GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

(Case C-121/05 P)

(2005/C 143/24)

Language of the case: German

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 January 2005 by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Third Chamber) in Case T-334/03 between Deutsche Post Euro Express GmbH and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 15 March 2005 (fax: 11 March 2005) by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, represented by A. von Mühlendahl, Vice-President of the Office, and G. Schneider, member of the litigation department in the field of intellectual property.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) submits the following grounds of appeal against the above-mentioned judgment:

(1)  OJ C 69, 19.03.2005, p. 14.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Østre Landsret by order of that court of 15 March 2005 in VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S v Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S

(Case C-125/05)

(2005/C 143/25)

Language of the case: Danish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Østre Landsret (Denmark) of 15 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between VW-Audi Forhandlerforeningen, acting for Vulcan Silkeborg A/S and Skandinavisk Motor Co. A/S on the following questions:

(1)  OJ L 145 of 29.6.1995, p. 25.

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

(Case C-127/05)

(2005/C 143/26)

Language of the case: English

An action against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M.-J. Jonczy and N. Yerrell, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission's complaint is based upon Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which states that it shall be the duty of every employer to ensure the health, safety and welfare of all his employees at work ‘so far as is reasonable practicable’. The Commission considers that this qualification placed upon the employers' duty is incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of Directive 89/391/EEC (‘the Directive’).

The Commission maintains that:

(1)  OJ L 183, p. 1.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in N.V. Raverco v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

(Case C-129/05)

(2005/C 143/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven te 's-Gravenhage (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between N.V. Raverco and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following questions:

(1)  Council Directive 97/78/EC of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 9.)

(2)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in Coxon and Chatterton Limited v Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality

(Case C-130/05)

(2005/C 143/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Administrative Court for Trade and Industry (Netherlands) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 21 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Coxon and Chatterton Limited and Minister of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality on the following questions:

(1)  Council Directive of 18 December 1997 laying down the principles governing the organisation of veterinary checks on products entering the Community from third countries (OJ 1997 L 24, p. 9).

(2)  Council Regulation of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure for the establishment of maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin (OJ L 224, p. 1).

Action brought on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-133/05)

(2005/C 143/29)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 21 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Austria has failed to adopt the measures necessary to implement the Directive at federal level in relation to the provisions concerning discrimination on the grounds of disability, and has altogether failed, with the exception of the regions of Vienna and Lower Austria, to adopt the measures necessary to implement the directive at regional level or, in any event, has failed to communicate them to the Commission.

(1)  OJ L 303, 02.12.2000, p. 16.

Action brought on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-134/05)

(2005/C 143/30)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 22 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa, member of the Commission's Legal Service.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that court of 22 March 2005 in Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit(intervener: LTO Nederland)

(Case C-138/05)

(2005/C 143/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands) of 22 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 25 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Stichting Zuid-Hollandse Milieufederatie and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit (intervener: LTO Nederland) on the following questions:

(1)  Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ L 230, 19/08/1991 p. 1)

(2)  Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ L 123, 24/04/1998 p. 1)

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat by order of that court of 17 March 2005 in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt

(Case C-140/05)

(2005/C 143/32)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat (Austria) of 17 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 29 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Amalia Valesko and Zollamt Klagenfurt on the following questions:

Question 1:

Question 2:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Luleå tingsrätt by order of that court of 21 March 2005 in Åklagaren v Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos

(Case C-142/05)

(2005/C 143/33)

Language of the case: Swedish

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Luleå tingsrätt (Sweden) of 21 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 24 March 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Åklagaren and Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos on the following questions:

(1)  of 16 June 2003, OJ L 214, 26.8.2003, p. 18.

Action brought on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-143/05)

(2005/C 143/34)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 23 November 2003.

(1)  OJ 2002 L 324, p. 53.

Action brought on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-144/05)

(2005/C 143/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 March 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 5 February 2004.

(1)  OJ 2002 L 208, p. 10

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 10 February 2005 in the case of Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG v Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn

(Case C-146/05)

(2005/C 143/36)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 10 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 1 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Albert Collée, as full legal successor to Collée KG, and Finanzamt Limburg a.d. Lahn on the following questions:

Action brought on 1 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-147/05)

(2005/C 143/37)

Language of the case: Dutch

An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by M. van Beek and S.P. Quintillan, of its Legal Service.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for implementing the directive in national law expired on 22 December 2003.

(1)  OJ 2000 L 327, p. 1

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that court of 13 January 2005 in F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

(Case C-151/05)

(2005/C 143/38)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Finance Court) (Germany) of 13 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 4 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between F. Weissheimer Malzfabrik and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following questions:

(1)  OJ L 302, p. 1

(2)  OJ L 351, p. 1.

Action brought on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Republic of Austria

(Case C-153/05)

(2005/C 143/39)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Republic of Austria was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 5 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gerald Braun, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

(1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) by order of that court of 28 January 2005 in Winfried L. Holböck v Finanzamt Salzburg-Land

(Case C-157/05)

(2005/C 143/40)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) of 28 January 2005, received at the Court Registry on 7 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Winfried L. Holböck and Finanzamt Salzburg-Land on the following question:

Do the provisions relating to the free movement of capital (Article 56 et seq. EC) preclude national legislation in force on 31 December 1993 (and remaining in force after Austria's accession to the EU on 1 January 1995), according to which dividends from inland shares are taxed at a rate of half the average tax rate applicable to the aggregate income, whereas dividends from a public limited company established in a third country (in the main proceedings, Switzerland), in which the taxable person holds two-thirds of the shares, are invariably taxed at the standard rate of income tax?

Action brought on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

(Case C-158/05)

(2005/C 143/41)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 April 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by G. Braun and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

(1)  OJ L 85, 28.03.2002, p. 40

Appeal brought on 8 April 2005 by Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis against the judgment delivered on 18 January 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-141/01 between Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis and Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-162/05 P)

(2005/C 143/42)

Language of the case: Spanish

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 January 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-141/01 between Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis and Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 April 2005 by Entorn, Societat Limitada Enginyeria I Seveis.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas and main arguments

The appellant puts forward three pleas in law:

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by judgment of that court of 31 March 2005 in Heger Rudi GmbH v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt

(Case C-166/05)

(2005/C 143/43)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Higher Administrative Court) (Austria) of 31 March 2005, received at the Court Registry on 13 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Heger Rudi GmbH and Finanzamt Graz-Stadt on the following question:

Does the grant of the right to fish by means of a transfer of fishing permits for valuable consideration constitute a ‘supply of services connected with immovable property’ within the meaning of Article 9(2)(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment?

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation de Belgique by judgment of that court of 4 April 2005, in URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE

(Case C-169/05)

(2005/C 143/44)

Language of the case: French

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Cour de Cassation de Belgique (Belgium) of 4 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 15 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between URADEX SCRL v Union Professionelle de la Radio et de la Télédistribution, abbreviated as RTD and Société Intercommunale pour la Diffusion de la Télévision, abbreviated as BRUTELE, on the following question:

Must Article 9(2) of Council Directive 93/83/EEC of 27 September 1993 on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (1) be interpreted as meaning that, where a collecting society is deemed to be mandated to manage the rights of a copyright owner or holder of related rights who has not transferred the management of his rights to a collecting society, that society does not have the power to exercise that rightholder's right to grant or refuse authorisation to a cable operator for cable retransmission, since it is mandated only to manage the pecuniary aspects of that rightholder's rights?

(1)  OJ L 248 of 6.10.1993, p. 15.

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht für ZRS Wien by order of that court of 8 April 2005 in KVZ retec GmbH v Republic of Austria (Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management)

(Case C-176/05)

(2005/C 143/45)

Language of the case: German

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Landesgericht für ZRS Wien (Vienna Regional Civil Court) (Austria) of 8 April 2005, received at the Court Registry on 20 April 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between KVZ retec GmbH and Republic of Austria (Federal Minister for Agriculture, Forestry, the Environment and Water Management) on the following questions:

Removal from the register of Case C-273/02 (1)

(2005/C 143/46)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 16 December 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-273/02: European Parliament v Council of the European Union, supported by Ireland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.

(1)  OJ C 219 of 14.09.2002.

Removal from the register of Case C-458/02 (1)

(2005/C 143/47)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 22 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-458/02 Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

(1)  OJ C 55 of 08.03.2003.

Removal from the register of Case C-395/03 (1)

(2005/C 143/48)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 25 February 2005, the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-395/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(1)  OJ C 264 of 01.11.2003.

Removal from the register of Case C-504/03 (1)

(2005/C 143/49)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 4 April 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-504/03 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.01.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-49/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/50)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 23 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-49/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(1)  OJ C 94 of 17.04.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-57/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/51)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-57/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

(1)  OJ C 85 of 03.04.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-165/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/52)

(Language of the case: English)

By order of 2 March 2005, the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-165/04 Commission of the European Communities v Ireland.

(1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-179/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/53)

(Language of the case: Greek)

By order of 10 March 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-179/04 Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic.

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.06.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-261/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/54)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 31 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-261/04 (Reference for a preliminary ruling Arbeitsgericht Regensburg): Gerhard Schmidt v Sennebogen Maschinenfabrik GmbH.

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-262/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/55)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-262/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

(1)  OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-277/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/56)

(Language of the case: German)

By order of 10 January 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-277/04 Commission of the European Communities v Federal Republic of Germany.

(1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-399/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/57)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 4 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-399/04 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic.

(1)  OJ C 273 of 06.11.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-460/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/58)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 23 February 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-460/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands.

(1)  OJ C 314 of 18.12.2004.

Removal from the register of Case C-516/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/59)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 8 April 2005, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-516/04 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.

(1)  OJ C 31 of 05.02.2005.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 April 2005

in Case T-336/02 Susan Christensen v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Staff case - Selection procedure for temporary staff - Composition of the Selection Committee and conduct of the procedure)

(2005/C 143/60)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-336/02: Susan Christensen, residing in Ispra (Italy), represented by G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: E. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the decision of Selection Committee COM/R/A/01/2000, for the constitution of a reserve list for recruitment of temporary staff in category A, not to include the applicant on the reserve list, and for compensation — the Court of First Instance (A.W. Meij, Single Judge) D. Christensen, administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 7 of 11.1.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 17 March 2005

in Case T-187/03 Isabella Scippacercola v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Access to documents of the institutions - Article 4(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001)

(2005/C 143/61)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-187/03: Isabella Scippacercola, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented initially by K. Adamantopoulos and D. Papakrivopoulos, lawyers, and subsequently by K. Adamantopoulos and B. Keane, Solicitor, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: L. Flynn and P. Aalto, with an address for service in Luxembourg) - application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 19 March 2003 rejecting the application made by the applicant for access to a document relating to the project for the new Athens International Airport at Spata (Greece) Ä the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of J. Azizi, President, M. Jaeger and O. Czúcz, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 17 March 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 200 of 23.8.2003.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 5 April 2005

in Case T-376/03 Michel Hendrickx v Council of the European Union (1)

(Officials - Internal competition - Non-admission to oral tests - Requirement of specific knowledge of languages - Principle of equal treatment - Access to Council documents - Obligation to state grounds)

(2005/C 143/62)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-376/03: Michel Hendrickx, official of the Council of the European Union, residing in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J.-N. Louis, S. Orlandi, A. Coolen and E. Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Sims and F. Anton) — application, first, for annulment of the decision of the Selection Board in competition Council/A/270 to award the applicant a disqualifying mark for written test A.3 and not to admit him to the oral tests and, second, for an order requiring the Council to pay token compensation of EUR 1 for non-material damage suffered — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of J.D. Cooke, President, R. Garcia-Valdecasas and I. Labucka, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 5 April 2005, in which it:

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 6 December 2004

in Case T-55/02 Peter Finch v Commission of the European Communities (1)

(Officials - Complaint - Implied rejection - Express rejection within the time-limit for appeals - Late notification of rejection - Admissibility - Pensions - Transfer of national pension rights - Calculation of years of service to be taken into account in the Community scheme - Salary taken as basis - Action manifestly unfounded in law)

(2005/C 143/63)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-55/02: Peter Finch, an official of the Commission of the European Communities,residing in Luxembourg (Luxembourg), represented by J.-N. Louis, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European Communities (Agents: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and H. Tserepa-Lacombe, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of the Commission's decision concerning the crediting of years of pensionable service to be taken into account in the Community scheme in consequence of the transfer of all the pension rights acquired by the applicant prior to his entry into service with the Commission — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, M.E. Martins Ribeiro and K. Jürimäe, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 6 December 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 2005

in Case T-206/02 Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (1)

(Action for annulment - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Locus standi - Association - Admissibility)

(2005/C 143/64)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-206/02: Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), established in Brussels (Belgium), represented by J. Boisseau, lawyer, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and S. Marquardt) supported by Commission of the European Communities, (Agents: initially G. zur Hausen and G. Boudot, and subsequently J. Enegren and G. Boudot, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially J. Collins, and subsequently R. Caudwell, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/CE of 2 May 2002, implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 15 February 2005

in Case T-229/02 Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK) v Council of the European Union (1)

(Action for annulment - Specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Capacity to bring proceedings - Locus standi - Association - Admissibility)

(2005/C 143/65)

Language of the case: English

In Case T-229/02: Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) and Kurdistan National Congress (KNK), established in Brussels, represented by M. Muller and E. Grieves, barristers, instructed by J.G. Peirce, solicitor, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Vitsentzatos and M. Bishop) supported by United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agents: initially J. Collins and subsequently R. Caudwell, with an address for service in Luxembourg) and by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Brown and P. Kuijper, with an address for service in Luxembourg) — application for annulment of Council Decision 2002/334/EC of 2 May 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2001/927/EC (OJ 2002 L 116, p. 33), and of Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June 2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2580/2001 and repealing Decision 2002/334 (OJ 2002 L 160, p. 26), the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President of the Chamber, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 15 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 14 February 2005

in Case T-406/03 Nicolas Ravailhe v Committee of the Regions of the European Union (1)

(Officials - Prior administrative procedure - Inadmissibility)

(2005/C 143/66)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-406/03: Nicolas Ravailhe, a former member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, residing in Amiens (France), represented by J.-P. Brodsky, against Committee of the Regions of the European Union (Agent: P. Cervilla, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer) — application, primarily, against the refusal of the authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment to reinstate the applicant in his post and restore his rights under the Staff Regulations as a member of the temporary staff of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union or, in the alternative, for payment of compensation — the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, F. Dehousse and D. Šváby, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 14 February 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 47 of 21.2.2004.

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 12 January 2005

in Case T-268/04 Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa v the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)

(2005/C 143/67)

Language of the case: French

In Case T-268/04: Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Cottee Dairy Products Pty Limited, established in New South Wales (Australia) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 April 2004 (Case R 148/2002-1) — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N. J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 12 January 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

Action brought on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-35/05)

(2005/C 143/68)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 21 January 2005 by Elisabeth Agne-Dapper, Schoorl (Netherlands), and 172 others, represented by Georges Vandersanden, Laure Levi and Aurore Finchelstein, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in this case are all officials who retired before 1 May 2004. They contest the transitional scheme set up pending the abolition of weightings by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 723/2004 of 22 March 2004 amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the European Communities (1) in so far as that scheme is based on a new calculation of the ‘pension’ weightings which are no longer calculated according to the cost of living in the capital, but according to the average cost of living in the Member State where the recipient of the pension provides evidence of having established his main residence.

In support of their claims the applicants first submit that the regulation cited is based on erroneous grounds in so far as neither the further integration of the Community nor the freedom of movement and residence, nor the difficulty of verifying the actual place of residence of pensioners can serve as a basis for the transitional scheme at issue.

The applicants also submit that the principles of equality, legal certainty, retroactivity of acquired rights and the protection of legitimate expectations have been infringed in this case.

(1)  OJ L 124, 27.04.2004, p. 1.

Action brought on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam and others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-80/05)

(2005/C 143/69)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 February 2005 by Hinrich Bavendam, Bremen (Germany), Günther Früchtnicht, Bremen (Germany), Hinrich Geerken, Bremen (Germany), Hans-Jürgen Weyhausen-Brinkmann, Bremen (Germany), Curt-Hildebrand v. Einsiedel, Leipzig (Germany), Christina Gräfin von Schall-Riaucour, Ahlen-Vorhelm (Germany), Franz-Albrecht Metternich-Sandor, Prinz von Ratibor and Corvey, Höxter (Germany), Christoph Prinz zu Schleswig-Holstein, Thumby (Germany) and the town of Schloß Holte-Stukenbrock (Germany), represented by T. Giesen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are either proprietors of entire sites or of large parts of sites declared by the contested decision to be sites of Community importance, which, the applicants submit, restricts their property rights.

The applicants submit that the selection criteria used for adding to the list of sites of Community importance were not met since the habitat types and species decisive to the selection are either not to be found at all or are not sufficiently representative.

The applicants contend further that:

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

Action brought on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-112/05)

(2005/C 143/70)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 2 March 2005 by Akzo Nobel NV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Nederland BV, established in Arnhem (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals International BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), Akzo Nobel Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands) and Akzo Nobel Functional Chemicals BV, established in Amersfoort (The Netherlands), represented by C. R. A. Swaak and J. de Gou, lawyers.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants contest the Commission's Decision of 9 December 2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/E-2/37.533-Choline Chloride), finding that the applicants were involved in a complex of agreements and concerted practices consisting of price fixing, market sharing and agreed actions against competitors in the choline chloride sector in the EEA and imposing a fine on the applicants.

In support of their application, the applicants submit a violation of Article 23(2) of Regulation 1/2003 (1) in that the Commission attributed the responsibility for the infringement also to Akzo Nobel NV, the holding company of the Akzo Nobel group. According to the applicants, Akzo Nobel NV did not have a decisive influence over the commercial policy of its subsidiaries.

The applicants furthermore submit that the amount of the fine imposed jointly and severally to the applicants exceeded for one of the applicants the limit of 10 % of the turnover. According to the applicants, the Commission should have limited the individual liability of each company.

The applicants finally submit a violation of the obligation to state reasons. According to the applicants, the Commission based its finding of joint and several liability of Akzo Nobel NV on an erroneous reasoning and has not indicated why it has established joint and several liability for one of the applicants beyond the limit of 10 % of the turnover.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, p. 1)

Action brought on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-117/05)

(2005/C 143/71)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 March 2005 by Andreas Rodenbröker, Hövelhof (Germany), and Others, represented by H. Glatzel, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are proprietors of sites which, under the contested decision, have been included on the Community list of sites of Community importance on the basis of the presence of the habitat types and species deemed worthy of protection under the Flora-Fauna-Habitat Directive.

The applicants submit:

(1)  Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ 1992 L 206, p. 7).

Action brought on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-121/05)

(2005/C 143/72)

Language of the case: English

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 15 March 2005 by Borax Europe Ltd., established in Guildford (United Kingdom), represented by D. Vandermeersch and K. Nordlander, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the Commission to refuse the applicant access to certain documents and tape recordings related to the preparation of the 30th adaptation to technical progress of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1). More in particular, the applicant's requested access to the audio recordings or transcripts of the meeting of the specialised experts in the field of reproductive toxicity on the classification of boric acid and borates.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the defendant made a manifest error of assessment and infringed Articles 4(1)(b) and 4(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 (2). According to the applicant, the defendant erred in stating that access to the documents would undermine the integrity of the specialised experts consulted and would expose them to external pressure. The applicant claims furthermore that the defendant erred in applying the exception relating to the protection of the Commission's decision making process and in deciding that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure.

The applicant finally invokes a violation of the principle of proportionality in failing to grant partial access to the audio recordings.

(1)  OJ English special edition: Series I Chapter 1967 p. 234

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43)

Action brought on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-132/05)

(2005/C 143/73)

Language of the case: French

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 16 March 2005 by Nicola Falcione, residing in Brussels, represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant was appointed an official at Grade A5/4 by decision of 24 March 2004. In his application he challenges his definitive recruitment classification. In support of his application, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 31 of the Staff Regulations and a manifest error of assessment. The applicant claims that the Commission ought also to have taken into account his relevant work and university level experience between 16 July 1974 and 28 February 1982. The Commission omitted to take that experience into account because the applicant did not obtain his university economics degree until 1 March 1982.

Action brought on 17 March 2005 by Gérard Meric against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-133/05)

(2005/C 143/74)

Language in which the application was submitted: French

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 17 March 2005 by Gérard Meric, residing in Paris (France), represented by Pascal Murzeau, lawyer.

ARBORA & AUSONIA, S.L. was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-141/05)

(2005/C 143/75)

Language of the case: German

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by Internationaler Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach v.d.H. (Germany), represented by H. Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested document the Commission denied the applicant unrestricted access to the European Commission's file relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 by reference to Article 4(1)(b) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation (1) and to the Data Protection Regulation (2).

The applicant claims that the contested decision infringes Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. The applicant is of the opinion that the reasons given by the European Commission for its refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file concerning Contract LIEN 97-2011, namely that unrestricted access to the file would impair the decision-making process, are invalid. The applicant further contends that there is public interest in the disclosure of the documents in question. The applicant also questions the applicability of Article 4(1)(b) of the Transparency Regulation.

The applicant complains furthermore of the refusal to grant unrestricted access to the file by reference to the Data Protection Regulation.

In addition, the applicant submits that the European Commission's action is arbitrary.

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2)  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-146/05)

(2005/C 143/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on by Flex Equipos de Descanso, established in Alcobendas, Madrid (Spain), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.

Recticel N.V. established in Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe (Belguim) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-148/05)

(2005/C 143/77)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Transporte (MINTRA), having its principal place of business in Madrid, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the defendant's decision classifying MINTRA in the general sector ‘public administrations’, in accordance with the ‘European system of accounts — ESA 1995’ provided for in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts in the Community. (1) The ESA 1995 consists of a series of definitions, nomenclatures and rules of accounting methodology which the Member States apply when drawing up their national accounts and economic statistics. That accounting system is also used for the application of the excessive deficit procedure.

MINTRA is a public-law entity of the Comunidad de Madrid attached to the Consejería de Transportes e Infraestructuras. It has legal personality and its own assets and also full capacity to act. It also has the capacity to incur autonomous debts with regard to the Comunidad de Madrid.

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

(1)  OJEC L 310 of 30.11.1996, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-150/05)

(2005/C 143/78)

Language of the case: Finnish

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by Markku Sahlstedt, Juha Kankkunen, Mikko Tanner, Toini Tanner, Liisa Tanner, Eeva Jokinen, Aili Oksanen, Olli Tanner, Leena Tanner, Aila Puttonen, Risto Tanner, Tom Järvinen, Runo K. Kurko, Maa- ja metsätaloustuottajain keskusliitto MTK ry and MTK:n säätiö, represented by Kari Marttinen, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

According to the applicants, the decision is contrary to Community law, in particular Article 4 of the Nature Directive and Annex III referred to there. The argument that the decision is contrary to Community law rests on three principal pleas in law:

Finland's stage 1 proposal of sites, from which the sites of Community importance were chosen by the Commission decision in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 4(2) of the directive, is contrary to the nature directive's mandatory selection criteria for the choice of sites.

The Commission is obliged to ensure that the sites included in the Member State's proposal satisfy the biogeographical requirements required for the inclusion of sites in the decision to be made after stage 2. The Commission thus may not, without a proper examination of the biogeographical data, approve a proposed site for entry in the list of sites of Community importance.

(1)  Commission Decision 2005/101/EC of 13 January 2005 adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list of sites of Community importance for the Boreal biogeographical region, OJ L 40, 11.2.2005, p. 1.

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-152/05)

(2005/C 143/79)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc., established in Mississanga, Ontario (Canada) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Removal from the Register of Case T-176/00 (1)

(2005/C 143/80)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-176/00, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

(1)  OJ C 285 of 7.10.2000.

Removal from the Register of Case T-225/01 (1)

(2005/C 143/81)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

By order of 15 March 2005, the President of the Fifth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-225/01, Gobierno Foral de Navarra v Commission of the European Communities.

(1)  OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.

Removal from the Register of Case T-142/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/82)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 March 2005, the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-142/04, Cargill B.V. v Commission of the European Communities.

(1)  OJ C 168 of 26.6.2004.

Removal from the Register of Case T-228/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/83)

(Language of the case: Dutch)

By order of 11 April 2005, the President of the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-228/04, Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

(1)  OJ C 247 of 12.10.2002.

Removal from the Register of Case T-470/04 (1)

(2005/C 143/84)

(Language of the case: French)

By order of 24 February 2005, the President of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-470/04, Thomas Peyker v Commission of the European Communities.

(1)  OJ C 57 of 5.3.2005.

(2005/C 143/85)

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

OJ C 132, 28.5.2005

Past publications

OJ C 115, 14.5.2005

OJ C 106, 30.4.2005

OJ C 93, 16.4.2005

OJ C 82, 2.4.2005

OJ C 69, 19.3.2005

OJ C 57, 5.3.2005

These texts are available on: