Official Journal C 281 Volume 42 of the European Communities 2 October 1999

ISSN 0378–6986 Official Journal C 281 Volume 42 of the European Communities 2 October 1999

English edition Information and Notices

Notice No Contents Page

I Information

Court of Justice

COURT OF JUSTICE

1999/C 281/01 Case C-197/99 P: Appeal brought on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment: delivered on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-37/97 between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Walloon Region and the Société Wallonne pour la Sidérurgie, and the Commission of the European Communities ...... 1

1999/C 281/02 Case C-261/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic ...... 2

1999/C 281/03 Case C-263/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic ...... 2

1999/C 281/04 Case C-264/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic ...... 3

1999/C 281/05 Case C-265/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic ...... 3

1999/C 281/06 Case C-266/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic ...... 4

1999/C 281/07 Case C-267/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines ...... 4

EN 2 (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (Continued) Page

1999/C 281/08 Case C-269/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht Hamburg, by order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JU¨ TRO Konservenfabrik GmbH ...... 5

1999/C 281/09 Case C-270/99 P: Appeal brought on 19 July 1999 by the Z against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-242/97 between Z and the European Parliament . . 5

1999/C 281/10 Case C-271/99: Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium ...... 5

1999/C 281/11 Case C-272/99: Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ...... 6

1999/C 281/12 Case C-273/99 P: Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr Connolly and the Commission of the European Communities ...... 6

1999/C 281/13 Case C-275/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Administratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of 22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin...... 7

1999/C 281/14 Case C-276/99: Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of Germany against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 7

1999/C 281/15 Case C-277/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1999 in the case of Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäftsstel- le des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien ...... 8

1999/C 281/16 Case C-280/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Moccia Irme SpA against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Commission of the European Communities ...... 8

1999/C 281/17 Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P: Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA (C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Commission of the European Communities ...... 9

1999/C 281/18 Case C-283/99: Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic ...... 9

1999/C 281/19 Case C-284/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco...... 10

1999/C 281/20 Case C-287/99: Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium ...... 10

EN Notice No Contents (Continued) Page

1999/C 281/21 Case C-289/99 P: Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a company incorporated under French law, against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities ...... 10

1999/C 281/22 Case C-292/99: Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic ...... 11

1999/C 281/23 Case C-297/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), by order of that court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman...... 12

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

1999/C 281/24 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the tests — Knowledge of languages)...... 13

1999/C 281/25 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV v Commission of the European Communities (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) — Right to be heard — Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in Flanders)...... 13

1999/C 281/26 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 in Case T-20/98: Q v Council of the European Union (Officials — Actions for annulment — Recovery of sums overpaid — Article 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations) ...... 14

1999/C 281/27 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 July 1999 in Case T-74/98: Luciano Mammarella v Commission of the European Communities (Official — Social security — Invalidity pension — Outside contractor bound by contract to the institution — Works contract systematically renewed) ...... 14

1999/C 281/28 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-163/98: The Procter & Gamble Company v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Community mark — Term ‘Baby-Dry’ — Absolute ground for refusal — Extent of review by the Boards of Appeal — Extent of review by the Court of First Instance) ...... 14

1999/C 281/29 Order of the Court of First Instance of July 1999 in Case T-194/95: Area Cova and Others v Council of the European Union (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut — Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility) ...... 15

1999/C 281/30 Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 1999 in Case T-12/96: Area Cova and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut — Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action for annulment — Inadmissibility) ...... 15

EN (Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents (Continued) Page

1999/C 281/31 Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 1999 in Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the European Union (Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of bacitracin zinc from the list of authorised additives — Directive 70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests) ...... 16

1999/C 281/32 Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of July 1999 in Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper v European Parliament (Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — None)...... 16

1999/C 281/33 Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 15 July 1999 in Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials)...... 16

1999/C 281/34 Case T-144/99: Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 17

1999/C 281/35 Case T-155/99: Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 17

1999/C 281/36 Case T-157/99: Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against the Council of the European Union ...... 18

1999/C 281/37 Case T-159/99: Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen against the Court of Auditors ...... 19

1999/C 281/38 Case T-160/99: Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson and Others against the Council of the European Union...... 19

1999/C 281/39 Case T-161/99: Action brought on 8 July 1999 by the company Navigazione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 20

1999/C 281/40 Case T-162/99: Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele, Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 21

1999/C 281/41 Case T-164/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the Council of the European Union...... 21

1999/C 281/42 Case T-165/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. against the Council of the European Union ...... 22

1999/C 281/43 Case T-166/99: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres de Dios and Others against the Council of the European Union...... 23

1999/C 281/44 Case T-167/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 23

1999/C 281/45 Case T-168/99: Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 24

1999/C 281/46 Case T-170/99: Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 24

1999/C 281/47 Case T-171/99: Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 24

1999/C 281/48 Case T-172/99: Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 25

EN (Continued on inside back cover) Notice No Contents (Continued) Page

1999/C 281/49 Case T-173/99: Action brought on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 26

1999/C 281/50 Case T-174/99: Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and Others against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 26

1999/C 281/51 Case T-175/99: Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 27

1999/C 281/52 Case T-176/99: Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa against the Council of the European Union ...... 27

1999/C 281/53 Case T-178/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 28

1999/C 281/54 Case T-179/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 29

1999/C 281/55 Case T-180/99: Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 29

1999/C 281/56 Case T-181/99: Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of the European Communities 30

1999/C 281/57 Case T-186/99: Action brought on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media Ireland Limited against the Commission of the European Communities ...... 31

1999/C 281/58 Removal from the register of Case T-169/97 ...... 31

EN 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/1

(Information)

COURT OF JUSTICE

Appeal brought on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of — order the respondent to pay the costs. Belgium against the judgment: delivered on 25 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-37/97 between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported Pleas in law and main arguments by the Kingdom of Belgium, the Walloon Region and the Société Wallonne pour la Sidérurgie, and the Commission of the European Communities Infringement of Community law (error of reasoning and disregard of the principle of legal certainty; erroneous characterisation in law of the facts found): (Case C-197/99 P) — (As regards the SNCI and Belfin loans) (1999/C 281/01) Absence of a statement of reasons: although the Court of An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 March 1999 First Instance identified the aid element, namely the by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court guarantees attaching to the SNCI and Belfin loans rather of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-37/97 than the loans as such, it did not identify the SNCI and between Forges de Clabecq SA, supported by the Kingdom of Belfin loans mentioned by the Commission, in particular Belgium, the Walloon Region and the Société Wallonne pour the SNCI loans referred to, whereas the applicant had la Sidérurgie SA, and the Commission of the European specifically criticised the absence of reasons for the contest- Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the ed decision. Such identification was however necessary, European Communities on 26 May 1999 by the Kingdom of since several loans were granted to Forges de Clabecq, as Belgium, represented by Anni Snoecx, Adviser in the Legal the Court of First Instance recalled. Moreover, all of those Service of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, External Trade and loans were covered by a State guarantee. Development Cooperation, acting as Agent, assisted by J.-M. de Backer, G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with — (As regards the guarantees in respect of the SNCI loans) an address for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins. Erroneous characterisation in law of the facts, resulting in a failure to have regard to the principle of legal certainty and an absence of reasons. The appellant claims that the Court should: — set aside the judgment delivered by the Court of First — (As regards the Belfin loans) Instance of the European Communities on 25 March 1999 in Case T-37/97(1), rejecting as to their substance the Failure by the Court of First Instance to adjudicate on a submissions made by the appellant in support of the form plea in law (alleging the existence of a mechanism for of order sought by the applicant in the proceedings at first the provision of a counter-guarantee by the intended instance in so far as they refer to ‘State guarantees in beneficiaries of the Belfin loans, who contribute to a respect of the Belfin and SNCI loans’; ‘Guarantee fund’). — consequently, uphold the submissions made by the applicant in the proceedings at first instance in so far as they refer to ‘State guarantees in respect of the Belfin and SNCI (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999, p. 19. loans’, and accordingly annul the Commission’s decision No C-43/96 of 18 December 1996 entitled ‘ECSC steel — Forges de Clabecq’, in so far as it refers to ‘State guarantees in respect of the Belfin and SNCI loans’; C 281/2 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Action brought on 13 July 1999 by the Commission of Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-261/99) (Case C-263/99)

(1999/C 281/02) (1999/C 281/03)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 July An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July represented by Gérard Rozet, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent, 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should: — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed The Commission of the European Communities claims that time-limit the measures necessary in order to recover from the Court should: Nouvelles Filatures Lainière de Roubaix, the recipient thereof, the aid declared to be illegal and incompatible with the common market by the decision of the Commission of a) Declare that, by placing restrictions on the pursuit of the 4 November 1998, which was notified on 17 November activity of transport consultant, the Italian Republic has 1998, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 52 and 59 of under the fourth paragraph of Article 249 CE and the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 43 EC and Articles 4 and 5 of that decision: 49 EC); — order the French Republic to pay the costs. b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments The Commission’s decision, which is binding in its entirety upon the State to which it is addressed (as provided for by the fourth paragraph of Article 249 EC), requires the French Republic as from 17 November 1998, first, to recover, in (Infringement of Article 52 of the EC Treaty accordance with Article 4 thereof, the aid granted in the form (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) of an investment premium amounting to FRF 14.23 million and to discontinue forthwith the aid granted in the form of a participating loan by applying normal market terms. In addition, the French Republic is required under Article 5 to The applicant doubts whether Article 3(1)(a) of Law No 264, inform the Commission, within two months from notification which restricts work as a consultant to nationals of other of the decision of the measures taken to comply with it. The Member States who are resident in Italy, is compatible action for annulment which has been brought(1) does not with the principle of non-discrimination on the ground of have suspensory effect, and the French Republic has at no time nationality. made any application for suspension of operation of the contested decision. (Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty The attitude adopted by the French Republic vis-à-vis the (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) Commission as regards compliance with the decision in question has been one of total silence. At no time since its decision was notified on 17 November 1998 has the Moreover, Law No 264 appears to be contrary to Article 49 Commission been able to ascertain any factor enabling it to EC, which provides for the removal of obstacles to freedom to conclude that the French Republic has taken any steps provide services across borders within the Community. The whatever with a view to recovering from Nouvelles Filatures aforementioned legislation as a whole categorically precludes Lainière de Roubaix the illegal and incompatible aid granted the possibility that foreign operators established in other to that undertaking. Member States may occasionally provide services in the field in question. (1) Case C-17/99, OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999, p. 22. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/3

Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-264/99) (Case C-265/99)

(1999/C 281/04) (1999/C 281/05)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, and Hélène Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Michard, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Centre, Kirchberg. Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.

The Commission of the European Communities claims that The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should: the Court should: a) Declare that, by maintaining legislation which requires — declare that, by maintaining and applying rules providing Community nationals who pursue an activity as hauliers for the application of an unfavourable formula for calculat- in Italy as service providers to register with Chambers ing the power rating for administrative purposes of vehicles of Commerce, following authorisation by the Ministero fitted with six-speed manual gearboxes and automatic dell’Interno, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its five-speed gearboxes, which produces discriminatory or obligations under Articles 6, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty protectionist effects vis-à-vis vehicles manufactured in (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC); other Member States by comparison with similar or competing national vehicles, and b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. — by maintaining provisions limiting the K factor for the purposes of calculating the power rating for tax purposes of vehicles for which type-approval was issued on an Pleas in law and main arguments isolated basis between 1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988 and which are regarded as equivalent to type- approved vehicles having an actual power in excess of a) Infringement of Article 59 of the EC 100 kW, Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) — the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now Article 90 EC);

The requirement that any natural or legal person pursuing an — order the French Republic to pay the costs. activity as haulier should register in the appropriate register held by the regional chamber of commerce does not appear to be compatible with the principle of freedom to provide services. Although such obligation to register is not directly Pleas in law and main arguments discriminatory, it does constitute an obstacle for economic operators established in a Member State other than Italy seeking to pursue their activities in that State. (Vehicles fitted with six-speed manual gearboxes or automatic five-speed gearboxes)

— Infringement of Article 90 EC: the use, in relation to the b) Infringement of Articles 6 and 52 of the models referred to, of the formula for calculating their EC Treaty (now, after amendment, power rating for administrative purposes resulting from Articles 12 and 43 EC) the 1956 circular, produces discriminatory or protectionist effects by comparison with similar national vehicles to which the generally more favourable 1977 circular applies. Article 6 of Law No 1442 lays down rules governing regis- The models in question which are produced in other tration and provides in particular that, so far as concerns Member States seek to achieve the best performance in foreign firms and companies and firms in general represented terms of fuel consumption and pollution emission levels. by foreign nationals, the applicant must produce the authoris- These are parameters which the French legislature expressly ation issued by the Ministero dell’Interno. That provision sought to take into account in 1977, and which prompted appears to be incompatible with the fundamental principles it to adopt a more complex new formula for calculating laid down in Articles 12 EC and 43 EC. vehicle power ratings for administrative purposes. Accord- ing to the information in the Commission’s possession, national production of such vehicles is limited to a single vehicle having an automatic five-speed gearbox. C 281/4 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

The new legislation enacted in 1998 will produce effects — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the only in relation to the future, and does not put an end to Commission states that there has been a considerable delay the discriminatory taxation suffered by the vehicles the (from 1977 to 1993, namely 17 years) on the part of the subject-matter of the proceedings which had already been French authorities in adopting measures pursuant to their placed in circulation in France prior to 1 July 1998. obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC, despite the fact that, on the French authorities’ own admission, the prob- (Vehicles given type-approval on an isolated basis between lems concerning pollution of surface water have been 1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988) apparent since the 1980s. The continuing degradation of the quality of surface water by pollution caused by nitrates — Infringement of Article 90 EC: the Commission considers proves the ineffectiveness of the measures constituting that the fact that the French authorities limited changes to the systematic plan of action submitted by the French the power rating for administrative purposes of the foreign authorities. vehicles discriminated against, by issuing new registration documents only for vehicles which had been given type- — Infringement of Article 4(3) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the approval, with immediate tax consequences, shows that use of poor-quality water for the abstraction of drinking they only partially took into consideration the judgment water, which is in principle prohibited, is possible only if in (1). the two cumulative conditions are complied with; those Feldain conditions have not been fulfilled. In numerous cases, the drinking water thus abstracted exceeds the maximum (1) Case 433/85 Feldain v Services Fiscaux du Département du Haut-Rhin permissible nitrate content; for this reason, the French (1987) ECR 3521. authorities state that ‘women who are pregnant or breast- feeding are strongly advised not to drink this water during the period of non-conformity’. Moreover according to the Commission’s findings, the French authorities have failed to establish management plans within the meaning of Article 4(3) where these have proved necessary.

(1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26. Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-266/99)

(1999/C 281/06) Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’ar- An action against the French Republic was brought before the rondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. (Case C-267/99)

The Commission of the European Communities claims that (1999/C 281/07) the Court should: Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’arron- — declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to dissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) of ensure that surface water intended for the abstraction of 15 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1999, drinking water conforms to the values laid down pursuant for a preliminary ruling in the case of Urbing (née Adam) to Article 3, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its against the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domai- obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC(1), in particular nes (Land Registration and Estates Department) on the follow- Article 4 thereof; ing questions:

— order the French Republic to pay the costs. 1. Is the concept of a liberal profession as referred to in point 2 of Annex F to the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Pleas in law and main arguments Member States relating to turnover taxes(1) an autonomous concept of Community law? The infringement found by the Commission in its reasoned opinion to have been committed relates exclusively to the 2. If so, does that concept cover the profession of property failure properly to apply the directive in the region of Brittany agent? alone. — Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 75/440/EEC: in (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1. the 4 departments concerned, the surface water fails, constantly and on a wide scale, to conform to the values laid down pursuant to Article 3. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/5

Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht — order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets Hamburg, by order of that court of 23 June 1999 in the of proceedings. cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengsten- berg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JU¨ TRO Konservenfabrik GmbH Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case C-269/99) The Court of First Instance, basing its decision on incorrect premisses, namely an erroneous characterisation and interpret- (1999/C 281/08) ation of certain provisions laid down in regulations, in particular Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the officials, failed in the present case to penalise the unlawfulness European Communities by order of the Landgericht Hamburg of non-compliance with strict time-limits, thereby disregarding (District Court, Hamburg) of 23 June 1999, received at the the principles of legal certainty and of the rights of the defence. Court on 19 July 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Carl Kühne KG (GmbH & Co.), Rich. Hengstenberg GmbH & Co. and Ernst Nowka GmbH & Co. KG v JU¨ TRO Konservenfa- brik GmbH on the following question:

Is Commission Regulation (EC) No 590/1999(1) of 18 March 1999 supplementing, by the addition of the designation ‘Spreewälder Gurken’, the Annex to Regulation (EC) Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission No 1107/96(2) on the registration of geographical indications of the European Communities against the Kingdom of and designations of origin under the procedure laid down in Belgium Article 17 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92(3) compatible with European Community law? (Case C-271/99)

(1) OJ L 74 of 19.3.1999, p. 8. (1999/C 281/10) (2) OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1. 3 ( ) OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1. An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Gérard Berscheid, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. Appeal brought on 19 July 1999 by the Z against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by the First Chamber The Commission of the European Communities claims that of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi- ties in Case T-242/97 between Z and the European the Court should: Parliament (1) declare that, by failing to bring into force within the prescribed time-limits the laws, regulations and adminis- (Case C-270/99 P) trative measures necessary in order to comply with Council Directive 95/71/EC of 22 December 1995 amending the (1999/C 281/09) Annex to Directive 91/493/EEC laying down the health conditions for the production and the placing on the An appeal against the judgment delivered on 4 May 1999 by market of fishery products(1), the Kingdom of Belgium has the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Directive European Communities in Case T-242/97 between Z and the 95/71/EC; European Parliament was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 July 1999 by Z, represent- (2) order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. ed by Jean-Noël Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. Pleas in law and main arguments The appellant claims that the Court should: The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third paragraph declare and rule that of Article 249 EC and of the first paragraph of Article 10 EC is such as to oblige Member States to which directives are — the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the addressed to adopt the measures necessary in order to European Communities (First Chamber) of 4 May 1999 implement those directives before the expiration of the in Case T-242/97 Z v European Parliament is to be time-limit prescribed for so doing. The time-limit in question annulled; expired on 1 July 1997 but Belgium has not adopted the necessary measures. adjudicating on the case afresh, declare that

— the decision of the Secretary-General of the Parliament (1) OJ L 332 of 30.12.1995, p. 40. of 28 October 1996, imposing on the appellant the disciplinary measure of downgrading from grade C 1, step 4, to grade C 5, step 1, is to be annulled; C 281/6 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Action brought on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of Appeal brought on 20 July 1999 by Mr B. Connolly the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by the Luxembourg First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr Connolly and the Commission of the European Communi- (Case C-272/99) ties

(1999/C 281/11) (Case C-273/99 P)

An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was (1999/C 281/12) brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi- ties on 20 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser, and An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 May 1999 by Olivier Couvert-Castéra, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Communities in Case T-203/95 between Mr B. Connolly and Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 20 July 1999 by Mr Connolly, represented by Jacques Sambon The Commission of the European Communities claims that and Pierre-Paul van Gehuchten, both of the Brussels Bar, with the Court should: an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du Fort Rheinsheim. (1) declare that, by adopting the Law of 15 March 1983 to protect the life and well-being of animals, which does The appellant claims that the Court should: not correctly transpose Council Directive 86/609/EEC of 24 November 1986 regarding the protection of animals used for experimental purposes(1), the Grand Duchy of Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that European Communities of 19 May 1999. directive and, in particular, Articles 5, 7(2), 8(1) and (3) and 19(5) thereof; And, ruling on the merits of the forms of order sought by the applicant (2) order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. — annul the decision of 6 September 1995 to commence disciplinary proceedings against him, the decision of 27 September 1995 to suspend him from his duties, Pleas in law and main arguments and the decision of 4 October 1995 to refer the matter to the Disciplinary Board; — Infringement of Article 5 of the directive: the abovementioned Luxembourg law falls short in numerous respects of the obligations expressly imposed by the directive. — order the Commission to pay him compensation of BFR 750 000 for the material and non-material dam- — Infringement of Article 7(2) of the directive: the Luxem- age suffered by him following the press campaign and bourg law does not clearly provide that the use of the defamatory allegations to which he was subject; an ‘animal with the lowest degree of sensitivity and psychological development’ may constitute an alternative — order that publication of the operative part of the to a ‘reasonable alternative solution’ only in cases concern- judgment to be given take place in the following ing animals not referred to in Article 2(a) of the directive. newspapers at the Commission’s expense: The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Financial Times; — Infringement of Article 19(5) of the directive: the absence of any obligation to keep records showing the provenance — order the Commission to pay the costs. and date of arrival of all animals acquired prevents the competent authorities to a considerable extent from being able to check that the animals used come from breeding establishments or supplying establishments or from estab- Pleas in law and main arguments lishments approved in accordance with Article 15 of the directive, or that they have been properly bred in the user establishment in accordance with Article 20 of the Infringement of Community law: directive. — Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of the first paragraph of Article 88 of the Staff Regulations of Officials: The Commission infringed the requirement upon (1) OJ L 358 of 18.12.1986, p. 1. the appointing authority not only to state the serious misconduct alleged against the official concerned but also to justify in what way that serious misconduct made it necessary to suspend the official immediately from his prerogatives. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/7

— Insufficient statement of reasons, misinterpretation of Action brought on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic the authority of measures: The Court of First Instance of Germany against the Commission of the European misinterprets the authority of the suspension decision of Communities 27 September 1995, which linked the alleged unauthorised public expression only to Article 17 of the Staff Regu- lations and not to Articles 11 and 12 thereof. (Case C-276/99)

— Infringement of the rules on the burden of proof and the duty of loyalty: The applicant having stated that it was not (1999/C 281/14) possible for him to take cognisance of a disciplinary sanction, even with the penalised officials enjoying the benefit of anonymity, it was for the Commission to An action against the Commission of the European Communi- produce evidence demonstrating the policy followed in ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European cases of publication by a serving official without prior Communities on 23 July 1999 by the Federal Republic of authorisation. Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing, Ministerialrat, and Claus-Dieter, Quassowski, Regierungsdirektor, of the Federal Ministry of Economic Affairs, D-53117 Bonn.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) annul Decision K(1999) 1123 final of the Commission of 21 April 1999 concerning a proceeding under Article 88 of the ECSC Treaty concerning State aid granted by Germany to Neue Maxhütte Stahlwerke GmbH; Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal Admin- istratif de Strasbourg, by judgment of that court of (2) order the defendant to pay the costs. 22 July 1999 in the case of Société Adidas v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Bas-Rhin

(Case C-275/99) Pleas in law and main arguments

(1999/C 281/13) The applicant challenges the finding in the contested decision that Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under the ECSC Treaty in relation to the recovery of State aid(1) Unlike the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Commission, the applicant takes the view that the bringing of European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal Adminis- court proceedings initially in respect of only 20 % of the claims tratif de Strasbourg (Administrative Court, Strasbourg) of in question is reasonable in order to economise on costs 22 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 23 July 1999, and is unobjectionable even though no notarially certified for a preliminary ruling in the case of Société Adidas v agreement is available in respect of the remaining 80 % which Directeur des Services Fiscaux on the following question: would ensure that following the delivery of a court decision on the partial claim, the Commission’s decision would be implemented without delay as regards the rest of the claim. The applicant further considers, unlike the Commission, that Whether the authorisation granted to France by the Council the decision of the Free State of Bavaria not to lodge an appeal Decision of 28 July 1989, published in the Official Journal of 1 against the order for a stay of proceedings made by the the European Communities on 16 August 1989( ), to intro- Landgericht Amberg (Amberg Regional Court) does not duce measures derogating from the Sixth Directive, excluding infringe Article 86 of the ECSC Treaty; although the lodging of value added tax which has been charged on expenditure in an appeal against an order staying proceedings was theoreti- respect of accommodation, food, hospitality and entertainment cally possible, it would have served no purpose in the from the right to deduct, is disproportionate to the aim of specific circumstances of the case and was not, therefore, an combating tax evasion laid down in Article 27 of the Sixth appropriate measure within the meaning of Article 86 of the Directive. ECSC Treaty.

(1) Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the (1) The aid in question is that which was the subject-matter of Joined French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second Cases T-129/95, T-2/96 ant T-97/96 (judgment of the Court of subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC First Instance of 21 January 1999) and of Cases C-158/95 (OJ on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating C 208 of 12.8.1995, p. 4), C-399/95 (OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996, p. to turnover taxes (OJ L 239 of 16.8.1989, p. 21). 5) and C-195/96 (OJ C 247 of 24.8.1996, p. 5). C 281/8 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs- meaning of Article 67(3) of Regulation No 1408/71), but gerichtshof by order of that court of 29 June 1999 in makes its application dependent — apart from the case of the case of Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäftsstelle des reuniting a family — on 15 years’ residence in that State Arbeitsmarktservice Wien before the acquisition of the periods of insurance in the other Member State?

(Case C-277/99) (1) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416.

(1999/C 281/15)

Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Verwaltungsge- Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Moccia Irme SpA richtshof (Administrative Court) of 29 June 1999, which against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the was received at the Court Registry on 26 July 1999, for a Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of preliminary ruling in the case of Doris Kaske v Landesgeschäfts- First Instance of the European Communities in Joined stelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Wien on the following questions: Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria 1. Does the Court of Justice’s ‘Rönfeldt judgment’ [Case Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, C-227/89] apply also to a case in which a migrant worker against Commission of the European Communities has made use of ‘freedom of movement’ (or more precisely, has anticipated it) before the entry into force of Regulation (Case C-280/99 P) (EEC) No 1408/71(1), but also before the EC Treaty came into effect in her home State, that is, at a time when she could not yet rely on Article 39 et seq. EC (formerly (1999/C 281/16) Article 48 et seq.) in the State of employment? An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of 2. If the answer to Question 1 is affirmative: First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Does application of the Rönfeldt judgment to the insured Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera risk of unemployment mean that a migrant worker may Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against the Com- rely on a legal position more favourable than Regulation mission of the European Communities was brought before the No 1408/71 which derives from a bilateral convention Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July between two Member States of the European Union (in this 1999 by Moccia Irme SpA, having its registered office in case, the Austro-German Convention on unemployment Naples (Italy), represented by Emilio Cappelli, Paolo De Caterini insurance) for the further duration of each period of and Andrea Bandini of the Rome Bar, with an address for exercise of freedom of movement within the meaning of service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Charles Turk, 13B Article 39 et seq. EC (formerly Article 48 et seq.), and thus avenue Guillaume, L-1651 Luxembourg. in particular also for claims which are raised after the return from the State of employment to the home State? The appellant claims that the Court should: — set aside the judgment of the Third Chamber, extended 3. If the answer to Question 2 is affirmative: Must such claims composition, of the Court of First Instance of the European be assessed in accordance with the (more favourable) Communities of 12 May 1999 in so far as it concerns the convention only in so far as they are based on periods of appellant, Moccia Irme SpA (Case T-164/96); insurance under compulsory unemployment insurance which were acquired before the entry into force of — give judgment for the appellant in the terms sought by it Regulation No 1408/71 in the State of employment (in at first instance. this case, 1 January 1994)? Pleas in law and main arguments 4. If the answer to either of Questions 1 and 2 is negative or (1) Breach and misapplication of Article 4(c) of the ECSC if the answer to Question 3 is affirmative: Treaty — Insufficient and contradictory grounds — Misuse of powers.

Is it permissible from the point of view of the prohibition (2) Breach and misapplication of Article 4(2), second indent, of discrimination under Article 39 EC (formerly Article 42) of the Fifth Aid Code — No grounds stated — Misuse of in conjunction with Article 3(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 powers. if a Member State provides in its legal system, for the taking into account of periods of insurance completed in (3) Breach of the principle of non-discrimination. another Member State, a more favourable provision that Regulation No 1408/71 (in this case, waiver of the requirement of immediately preceding insurance within the 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/9

Appeal brought on 28 July 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer — Misuse of powers in terms of view of unequal treatment. SpA (C-281/99 P) and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA (C-282/99 P), against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by the Third Chamber, extended composition, of (1) Decision of the ECSC Commission of 27 November 1991, OJ the Court of First Instance of the European Communities 1991 L 362 of 31.12.1991, p. 57. in Joined Cases T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferri- era Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sider- camuna SpA, against Commission of the European Com- munities Action brought on 29 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Cases C-281/99 P and C-282/99 P) (Case C-283/99)

(1999/C 281/17) (1999/C 281/18)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the An appeal against the judgment delivered on 12 May 1999 by Court of Justice of the European Communities on 29 July the Third Chamber, extended composition, of the Court of 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases represented by Antonio Aresu and Maria Patakia, both of its T-164/96, T-165/96, T-166/96, T-167/96, T-122/97 and Legal Service, acting as Agents, the office of Carlos Go´mez de T-130/97, brought by Moccia Irme SpA, Prolafer Srl, Ferriera la Cruz, Wagner Centre Kirchberg. Acciaieria Casilina SpA, Dora Ferriera Acciaieria Srl, Ferriera Lamifer SpA and Nuova Sidercamuna SpA, against Com- mission of the European Communities, was brought before The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 28 July the Court should: 1999 by Ferriera Lamifer SpA, having its registered office in Travagliato (Italy), and Ferriera Acciaieria Casilina SpA having a) Declare that, by providing that: its registered office in Montecompatri (Italy), both represented by Carmine Punzi, Mario Siragusa and Filippo Satta, of the — private security work (including surveillance or caretak- Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at ing of movable property and buildings) may be carried Helvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 2 place Winston Churchill, L-1340 out in Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private surveil- Luxembourg. lance firms’ holding Italian nationality; — only citizens in possession of such a licence may be employed as ‘qualified private security guards’; The appellant claims that the Court should: the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC; and — grant these appeals, amend the contested decision accordingly and make an appropriate order for costs. b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments Pleas in law and main arguments The nationality requirement for ‘qualified private security — Breach of Articles 4(c) and 95 of the ECSC Treaty inasmuch guards’ constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for as the Court of First Instance held that Article 95 of the workers contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after Treaty was not applicable to the State aids in question amendment, Article 39 EC). where the requirements were not met for the applicability of the derogation under the Fifth Aid Code. The requirement of possession of Italian nationality restricts, furthermore, the right of any natural or legal person belonging — Failure to state grounds for the judgment and misapplica- to another Member State to work in Italy, contrary to tion of Community law inasmuch as the Court did not rule Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 on the unlawfulness of Article 4(2) of the Fifth Code in EC) on the freedom of establishment. So far as concerns legal relation to Article 4(c) of the ECSC Treaty. persons, Article 134 of the Consolidated Legislation on Public Security restricts the right to pursue such activity by means of a branch or agency, as expressly provided for in Article 43 EC. — Breach and eroneous, illogical, irrational and groundless Thus, the only way in which it would be possible for a foreign application of Article 4(2), second indent, of Commission undertaking to establish itself in Italy would be by setting up a 1 Decision 3855/91( ). subsidiary company under Italian law. Natural persons who are non-Italian Community citizens, on the other hand, are — Breach, erroneous and groundless application of the precluded under Article 138 of the Consolidated Legislation on decision of the Commission of 12 December 1994; mis- Public Security from establishing themselves as self-employed taken assumptions; mistaken investigation. ‘qualified private security guards’. C 281/10 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

The nationality requirement laid down in Article 134 the represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal Consolidated Legislation on Public Security thus cannot be Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in imposed on service providers established in other countries. Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Such an obstacle is discriminatory and therefore contrary to Centre, Kirchberg. Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC). The effect of such legislation is to deny undertakings The Commission of the European Communities claims that established in other countries of the Community any chance the Court should: of providing security services in Italy so long as they retain a head office in another country. — declare that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary in order to ensure complete and correct transposition of Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants(1) and Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants(2), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht under Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 89/369/EEC and Korneuburg (Austria) by order of 5 July 1999 in the case Articles 2, 6 and 7 of Directive 89/429/EEC; of New Yorker S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco — order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

(Case C-284/99) Pleas in law and main arguments

(1999/C 281/19) The Commission proposes to limit the present proceedings to the Brussels-Capital Region. Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of 5 July 1999 from the In relation to Directive 89/369/EEC, the Commission refers to Landesgericht Korneuburg (Regional Court, Korneuburg) (Aus- a series of respects in which the rules applying to Brussels are tria), which was received at the Court Registry on 29 July not in conformity with the directive, particularly as regards the 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of New Yorker absence of any obligation on the authorities requiring them to S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco on the following take action in the event that standards are exceeded and the question: absence of any detailed provisions regarding the obligations incumbent on undertakings. On a proper construction of Article 1 thereof, is Council Regulation (EC) No 3295/94 of 22 December 1994 laying In relation to Directive 89/429/EEC, the Commission declares down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation, that Articles 6(3) to (5) and 7(1) and (2) of the directive have export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of not been transposed. counterfeit and pirated goods(1) also applicable to situations in which goods of the type specified therein are, in the course (1) OJ L 163 of 14.6.1989, p. 32. of transit between two States not belonging to the European 2 Community, temporarily detained by customs authorities in a ( ) OJ L 203 of 15.7.1989, p. 50. Member State on the basis of that regulation, at the request of a holder of rights who claims that his rights have been infringed and whose undertaking has its registered office in a Member State of the European Community?

(1) OJ L 341 of 30.12.1994. Appeal brought on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, a company incorporated under French law, against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-289/99 P) Action brought on 30 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of (1999/C 281/21) Belgium An appeal against the order made on 21 May 1999 by the (Case C-287/99) First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-169/98 and T-170/98 between Schiocchet and the Commission of the European Communities (1999/C 281/20) was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 August 1999 by Schiocchet, represented An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before by Pascal Barbier, of the Thionville Bar, with an address for the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 July service in Luxembourg at the offices of the Viva Vacances 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, agency, 33 Rue de Strasbourg. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/11

The appellant claims that the Court should: Action brought on 3 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(1) set aside the contested order in so far as it dismisses the claims under Article 173 of the Treaty; (Case C-292/99)

(2) allow the appellant’s claim(1); (1999/C 281/22)

(3) alternatively, in the event that the Court accepts the appeal, examine the case and rule on the unresolved points of the An action against the French Republic was brought before the application, having regard to the principle of the essential Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 August need to ensure the impartiality of the court seised of the 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities, master, and, principally, on the validity of the provisions represented by Hendrik van Lier and Léna Ström, Legal of Council Regulation 684/92 of 16 March 1992(2); Advisers, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Go´ mez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg. (4) order the Commission to pay all the costs, both of the proceedings at first instance and of the proceedings before the Court of Justice. The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

— declare that, by failing to draw up management plans either for the whole of its territory or for all waste, and by Pleas in law and main arguments failing to include a chapter relating to packaging waste in all the waste plans adopted, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7(1) of Directive — Distortion of the facts by virtue of the legal characterisation 75/442/EEC on waste(1), as amended by Directive applied to them, and of the evidence: the contested order 91/156/EEC(2), Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC on distorted the concept of acts producing binding effects for hazardous waste(3) and Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC the purposes of the fourth paragraph of Article 173 of the on packaging and packaging waste(4); EC Treaty by taking the view that the contested decision (in the form of a letter stating that no action was to be — order the French Republic to pay the costs. taken on the complaint) did not involve measures which might affect the appellant’s legal situation;

— Contravention of the principle of complete legal certainty, by means of Article 234 EC: the contested order wrongly Pleas in law and main arguments finds that the appellant should have pleaded the illegality of Regulation No 684/92 before the national court; — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC: — Distortion of the nature of the application: it was wrongly twelve of the one hundred French départements do not have held in the contested order that the actions for annulment a ‘departmental plan for the elimination of domestic and were intended, in substance, to obtain a declaration that related waste’ as provided for by the French legislation the French State had failed to comply with its Treaty transposing the abovementioned directives, and six of the obligations, whereas, in reality, they were principally twenty six French regions do not have a ‘regional plan for directed against the conduct of undertakings supported by the elimination of waste other than domestic and related the French authorities which were engaged in practices waste’. contrary to Community competition law, analogous to those referred to in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1017/68 — Infringement of Article 7(1) of Directive 75/442/EEC (as in the field of transport by road. amended) and of Article 6(1) of Directive 91/689/EEC: the existing waste management plans do not cover all of the waste which is the subject of the abovementioned directives. Thus, most of the regional plans do not take into account PCBs (the French Government seeks to justify (1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998, pp. 25 and 26. (2) OJ L 74 of 20.3.1992, p. 1. this by citing the imminent transposition of Directive 96/59/EC); the ‘schemes for the elimination of hospital waste’ do not constitute plans for the implementation of the requirements laid down by Community law, and the six regions possessing such plans are not therefore covered by a plan relating to that category of waste; moreover, in 18 départements ‘special domestic waste’ is not covered by either a regional or a departmental plan. C 281/12 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

— Infringement of Article 14 of Directive 94/62/EC: the preliminary ruling in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate existing management plans do not contain any specific against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. Farmer 3) C.J. Burley chapter relating to packaging waste. and 4) B. Denman on the following question:

Are the requirements in Articles 15(2) and (3) of Council 1 ( ) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 39. Regulation 3821/85(1) for a driver to record ‘all other periods (2) OJ L 78 of 26.3.1991, p. 32. (3) OJ L 377 of 31.12.1991, p. 20. of work’ and ‘breaks in work and daily rest periods’ on the (4) OJ L 365 of 31.12.1994, p. 10. vehicle record sheet to be construed so that those terms include: (i) a period of time spent travelling to take over a vehicle which is subject to the requirement to install and use vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out in Category A above i.e. Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Nottingham a) time spent travelling pursuant to the instructions of Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom), by order of that the employer or court of 30 June 1999, in the case of the Vehicle Inspectorate against 1) Skills Motor Coaches Ltd 2) B.J. b) time (forming part of the daily or weekly rest period Farmer 3) C.J. Burley and 4) B. Denman following the last period of work) during which the employee travels at a time and in a manner of his own choosing. (Case C-297/99) (ii) a period of time spent performing driving or other duties (1999/C 281/23) which are exempt from the requirement to install and use vehicle recording equipment in the circumstances set out Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the under Category B above. European Communities by an order of the Nottingham Magistrates’ Court (United Kingdom) of 30 June 1999, which (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 of 20 December 1985 on was received at the Court Registry on 6 August 1999, for recording equipment in road transport (OJ L 370, 31.12.85, p. 8). 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/13

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 19 July 1999 of 8 July 1999 in Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrio´ n v Council of the European Union(1) in Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij NV v Commission of the European Communities(1) (Officials — Open competition — Non-admission to the tests — Knowledge of languages) (Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3) EC) — Right to be heard — Article 90(1) of the EC Treaty (now (1999/C 281/24) Article 86(1) EC), read in conjunction with Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) — Exclusive right to broadcast television advertising in Flanders) (Language of the case: French)

In Case T-168/97: Daniel Varas Carrio´ n, residing in Barcelona (1999/C 281/25) (Spain), represented by Marianne Droinet, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Albert Moro, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine, v Council of the European Union (Agents: Thérèse Blanchet and Ana Ramı´rez Fueyo) — application for annulment of the decision of the selection (Language of the case: Dutch) board in competition CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 not to admit the applicant to the tests in that competition, of the initial decision of that selection board dated 19 December 1996 and of the tests held on 26 April 1997 — the Court of In Case T-266/97: Vlaamse Televisie Maatschappij, established First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of: A. Potocki, at Vilvoorde (Belgium), represented by Francis Herbert and President, and C.W. Bellamy and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Registrar, has given a judgment on 19 July 1999, in which it: Luxembourg at the Chambers of Carlos Zeyen, 56-58 Rue Charles Martel, v Commission of the European Communities (Agent: Wouter Wils) — application for annulment of Com- 1. Orders that there is no need to give a decision on the application mission Decision 97/606/EC of 26 June 1997 pursuant to for annulment of the decision of the selection board in competition Article 90(3) of the EC Treaty on the exclusive right to CONS/C/374 dated 19 December 1996; broadcast television advertising in Flanders (OJ 1997 L 244, p. 18) — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and 2. Annuls the decision of the selection board in competition C.W. Bellamy, J. Pirrung, A.W.H. Meij and M. Vilaras, Judges; CONS/C/374 dated 18 March 1997 refusing to admit the A. Mair, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment applicant to the tests in that competition; on 8 July 1999, in which it:

3. Dismisses the remainder of the claim; 1. Dismisses the application;

4. Orders the Council to pay the costs. 2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 370 of 6.12.1997. (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997. C 281/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE decision refusing to grant the applicant the benefits provided for by the Staff Regulations of officials in respect of partial of 19 July 1999 permanent invalidity resulting from an accident suffered by him when he was contractually bound to the institution as an outside contractor and, in the alternative, for damages — the in Case T-20/98: Q v Council of the European Union(1) Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), composed of M. Jae- ger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; A. Mair, (Officials — Actions for annulment — Recovery of sums Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on overpaid — Article 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations) 19 July 1999, in which it: 1. (1999/C 281/26) Dismisses the application; 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs. (Language of the case: French) (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998. In Case T-20/98: Q, an official of the Council of the European Union, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Ariane Tornel and Françoise Parmentier, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at Fiduciaire Myson S.à r.l., 30 Rue de Cessange, against Council of the European Union (Agents: Martin Bauer and Denis Waelbroeck) — application for annulment of the decisions of the Council of 12 March and 13 June 1997 ordering the applicant to repay sums overpaid JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE by way of accommodation expenses to which are entitled members of staff posted to non-Member States — the Court of 8 July 1999 of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, J. Pirrung and M. Vilaras, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, in Case T-163/98: The Procter & Gamble Company v gave a judgment on 19 July 1999, in which it: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(1) 1. Dismisses the application. (Community mark — Term ‘Baby-Dry’ — Absolute ground 2. Orders the parties to bear their own costs. for refusal — Extent of review by the Boards of Appeal — Extent of review by the Court of First Instance) (1) OJ 1998 C 94. (1999/C 281/28)

(Language of the case: French)

In Case T-163/98: The Procter & Gamble Company, having its registered office at Cincinnati, Ohio (United States of America), JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE represented by Thierry van Innis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of of 19 July 1999 Katia Manhaeve, 56-58 rue Charles Martel v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and in Case T-74/98: Luciano Mammarella v Commission of Designs) (Agents: Oreste Montalto and Fernando Lo´ pez de the European Communities(1) Rego) — appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 1998 (Case R (Official — Social security — Invalidity pension — Outside 35/1998-1), which was notified to the applicant on 7 August contractor bound by contract to the institution — Works 1998 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), contract systematically renewed) composed of: A. Potocki, President, C.W. Bellamy and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment (1999/C 281/27) on 8 July 1999, in which it held:

1. The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for (Language of the case: Italian) Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 July 1998 (Case R 35/1998-1) is annulled. In Case T-74/98: Luciano Mammarella, an official of the 2. Commission, residing at Biandronno (Italy), represented by The parties shall bear their own costs. Giuseppe Marchesini, of the Vicenza Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, (1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999. 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, v Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Alberto Dal Ferro) — application for annulment of the Commission’s 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/15

ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of July 1999 of 8 July 1999 in Case T-194/95: Area Cova and Others v Council of the 1 in Case T-12/96: Area Cova and Others v Council of European Union( ) the European Union and Commission of the European (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea Communities(1) — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut — (Fisheries — Conservation of the resources of the sea Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action — Convention on future Multilateral Cooperation in the for annulment — Inadmissibility) North-West Atlantic fisheries — Greenland halibut — Quota for catches granted to the Community fleet — Action (1999/C 281/29) for annulment — Inadmissibility)

(Language of the case: Spanish) (1999/C 281/30) In Case T-194/95: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain), Armadora José Pereira SA, established in Vigo, Armadores (Language of the case: Spanish) Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA, established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar In Case T-12/96: Area Cova SA, established in Vigo (Spain), SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established Armadora José Pereira SA. established in Vigo, Armadores in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moan˜ a (Spain), Pesqueros de Aldan SA, established in Vigo, Centropesca SA, Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA, established in Vigo, Chymar SA, established in Vigo, Eloymar established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo, SA, established in Estribela (Spain), Exfaumar SA, established Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA, in Bueu (Spain), Farpespan SA, established in Moan˜ a (Spain), established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marıń (Spain), Freiremar SA, established in Vigo, Hermanos Gandon SA, Manuel Nores Gonza´lez, residing in Marıń, Moradin˜ a SA, established in Cangas (Spain), Heroya SA, established in Vigo, established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in Hiopesca SA, established in Vigo, José Pereira e Hijos SA, Camarin˜ as (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu, established in Vigo, Juana Oya Perez, residing in Marıń (Spain), Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA, Manuel Nores Gonza´lez, residing in Marıń, Moradin˜ a SA, established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established established in Cangas, Navales Cerdeiras SL, established in in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina Camarin˜ as (Spain), Nugago Pesca SA, established in Bueu, SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in Pesquera Austral SA, established in Vigo, Pescaberbés SA, Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marıń, Pes- established in Vigo, Pesquerias Bigaro Narval SA, established querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA, in Vigo, Pesquera Cies SA, established in Vigo, Pesca Herculina established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo, SA, established in Vigo, Pesquera Inter SA, established in Asociacio´ n Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores Cangas, Pesquerias Marinenses SA, established in Marıń, Pes- de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociacio´ n querias Tara SA, established in Cangas, Pesquera Vaqueiro SA, Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias established in Vigo, Sotelo Dios SA, established in Vigo, Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociacio´ nde Asociacio´ n Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores Sociedades Pesqueras Espanõlas (ASPE), established in Vigo, de Pesca de Merluza (Anamer), established in Vigo, Asociacio´ n represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, Nacional de Armadores de Buques Congeladores de Pesquerias Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura Varias (Anavar), established in Vigo, and Asociacio´ nde Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service Sociedades Pesqueras Espan˜ olas (ASPE), established in Vigo, c/o Cabinet Quatrecasas, 78 avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, represented by Anntonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona Bar, supported by Xunta de Galicia, represented by Victor Manuel Eva Contreras Ynzenga, of the Madrid Bar, and Maria Ventura Va´zquez-Portomen˜ e Seijas, of the Santiago de Compostela Bar, Arasanz, of the Barcelona Bar, with an address for service c/o and Antonio Hierro Hernańdez-Mora, of the Madrid Bar, c/o Cabinet Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, Brussels, v Fundacio´ n Galicia-Europa, 105 avenue Milcamps, Brussels, Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Ger- v Council of the European Union (Agents: John Carbery, mań-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramo´ n Torrent) and Commission Germań-Luis Ramos Ruano and Ramo´ n Torrent) — appli- of the European Communities (Agents: Thomas Van Rijn and cation for annulment of Council Regulation (EC) No 1761/95 Juan Guerra Fernandez) — application for annulment of of 29 June 1995 amending, for the second time, Regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 2565/95 of 30 October 1995 (EC) No 3366/94 laying down for 1995 certain conservation concerning the stopping of fishing for Greenland halibut by and management measures for fishery resources in the Regulat- vessels flying the flag of a Member State (OJ 1995 L 262, ory Area as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral p. 27) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), Cooperation in the North-West Atlantic Fisheries (OJ 1995 composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, L 171, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber), Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the composed of M. Jaeger, President, and K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, operative part of which is as follows: Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 July 1999, the 1. operative part of which is as follows: The application is dismissed as inadmissible; 1. The application is dismissed as inadmissible. 2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council and of the Commission. 2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay the costs of the Council. The intervener is to bear its own costs. (1) OJ C 77 of 16.3.1996. (1) OJ C 315 of 25.11.1995. C 281/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in INSTANCE Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim, v European Parliament (Agents: Hannu von of 30 June 1999 Hertzen and Joa˜o Sant’Anna) — application for suspension of operation of the recruitment procedure commenced by vacan- cy notice No 8675 of 14 April 1999 — the President of the in Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc. v Council of the Court of First Instance made an order on 1 July 1999, the European Union operative part of which is as follows:

(Proceedings for interim relief — Suspension of operation of Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 — Withdrawal of bacitracin 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed; zinc from the list of authorised additives — Directive 70/524/EEC — Urgency — Balancing of interests) 2. The costs are reserved. (1999/C 281/31)

(Language of the case: English)

In Case T-70/99 R: Alpharma Inc., established at Fort Lee (United States of America), represented by Gavin Robert, Solicitor, and Bernard van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Freddy Brausch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Council of the ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST European Union (Agents: John Carbery, Moyra Sims and INSTANCE Jorge Monteiro), supported by Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Peter Oliver, Theofanis Christoforou and Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi), Republic of Finland (Agents: of 15 July 1999 Holger Rotkirch and Tuula Pynnä) and Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: Anders Kruse) — application for suspension of the operation of Council Regulation (EC) No 2821/98 of in Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti v Commission of the 17 December 1998 amending, as regards withdrawal of the European Communities authorisation of certain antibiotics, Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1998 L 351, p. 4) or for other interim measures — the President of the Court of (Proceedings for interim relief — Officials) First Instance made an order on 30 June 1999, the operative part of which is as follows: (1999/C 281/33) 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. The costs are reserved. (Language of the case: French)

In Case T-167/99 R: Carla Giulietti, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, v INSTANCE Commission of the European Communities (Agents: Gianluigi Valsesia and Julian Currall) — application for suspension, first, of the decision of the selection board in competition of July 1999 COM/A/10/98 to exclude the applicant from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests and, second, of all of the in Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper v European Parlia- steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure ment relating to that competition — the President of the Court of First Instance made an order on 15 July 1999, the operative (Officials — Procedure for interim relief — Urgency — part of which is as follows: None) 1. The application for interim measures is dismissed; (1999/C 281/32)

2. The costs are reserved. (Language of the case: French)

In Case T-111/99 R: Ignacio Samper, an official of the European Parliament, residing in Madrid, represented by Eric 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/17

Action brought on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of — its obligation to provide a statement of reasons, in that it Professional Representatives before the European Patent does not explain in what respect, going beyond the Office (EPI) against the Commission of the European principle of comparative advertising authorised by Direc- Communities tive 84/450 as amended by Directive 97/55 (1), the implementation of that principle by the EPI was contrary to Community competition law; (Case T-144/99) — the rules of the EC Treaty, in particular Article 81 thereof, and the rules of law concerning its application, by declaring (1999/C 281/34) the articles of the Code of Conduct in issue, as referred to above, to be contrary to Article 81(1), whereas:

(Language of the case: French) — first, by amending Directive 84/450 in order to include comparative advertising within its scope, Directive 97/55 expressly provided for the right to prohibit such An action against the Commission of the European Communi- advertising in relation to the activities of professional ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the persons; and European Communities on 14 June 1999 by the Institute of Professional Representatives before the European Patent Office (EPI), established in Munich (Federal Republic of Germany), — second, the provisions forming the subject-matter of represented by Robert Collin and Mary-Claude Mitchell, of the the contested decision concern professional conduct Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the obligations which pursue an objective in the public Chambers of Nicolas Decker, 16 Avenue Marie-Thérèse. interest, constituting a competition factor in accordance with Article 81(1) which is justified by the nature of those provisions. The applicant claims that the Court should:

— partially annul the Commission’s decision of 7 April 1999 In the alternative, the EPI maintains that, by exempting the relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the two provisions in issue for a transitional period only, in order EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) (Article 53 of the EEA to give the applicant institute time to adapt to the situation by Agreement) (IV/36.147 EPI Code of Conduct), in so far as amending its Code of Conduct, when the conditions for it concerns Article 2(b)(1) and (3) and Article 5(c) of the the application of Article 85(3) are already fully met, the EPI Code of Conduct; Commission has infringed Article 81(3) of the EC Treaty and Article 8 of Regulation No 17/62. — order the Commission to pay all the costs and expenses incurred as a result of these proceedings. (1) Directive 97/55/EC of European Parliament and of the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising Pleas in law and main arguments (OJ L 290 of 23.10.1997, p. 18).

The application contests the decision of the Commission by which it held that two articles of the Code of Professional Conduct drawn up by the applicant institute (the EPI), which was itself set up by the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation (‘the EPO’), are contrary to Article 85 of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC). The provisions in issue are Article 2(b)(1) and (3), relating to comparative advertising, and Article 5(c), relating to relations between representatives of Action brought on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann & clients and former representatives of those clients. Hansen GmbH against the Commission of the European Communities In the contested decision, the Commission takes the view that those two provisions restrict the freedom of action of members (Case T-155/99) of the EPI and are designed to restrict competition between members of the profession. According to the Commission, those two provisions, one of which prohibits comparative (1999/C 281/35) advertising and the other of which is liable to impede the supply of services to former clients of other representatives, help to crystallise the clientele of each professional representa- (Language of the case: German) tive within each national market, and thus constitute a restriction of competition which is unnecessary and significant, since it concerns all professional representatives on the EPO An action against the Commission of the European Communi- list who are members of the EPI. ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 June 1999 by Dieckmann & Hansen GmbH, of Hamburg, represented by Professor In support of its arguments, the applicant maintains that the Hans-Jürgen Rabe, of the Gaedertz partnership, 35 Avenue de defendant institution has infringed: Tervuren, Brussels. C 281/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

The applicant claims that the Court should: meeting of the Standing Veterinary Committee of 23 Feb- ruary 1999 that the Commission submitted the final report — set aside the contested decision; on the inspection visit to Kazakhstan, and moreover it does not appear from the minutes that the Commission — order the defendant to pay the applicant DEM submitted to the Standing Veterinary Committee the 9 519 974 .00, with interest at 8 % per annum from the specific proposal for the contested decision. date when the present action was brought;

— declare that the defendant is obliged to compensate the The liquidated claim for damages essentially concerns an applicant for all further damage which may arise; advance payment for a delivery of 9 500 kg of caviar which is likely to be irrecoverable, and the loss of profit which could — order the defendant to pay the costs. have been earned on the processing and sale of that quantity. The final amount of damage cannot yet be completely calculated, however, and so the Community must be held to Pleas in law and main arguments be liable in principle.

The applicant imports caviar mainly from Kazakhstan in large units (as a rule 1.8 kg tins), packages it in small portions (1) Commission Decision of 26 March 1999 amending Decision and sells these on to its customers inside and outside the 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the Community. import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption (OJ No L 91 of 7.4.1999, p. 37). (2) Commission Decision of 28 January 1999 amending Decision In accordance with Article 1 of in conjunction with the Annex 97/296/EC drawing up the list of third countries from which the 1 to the contested Commission decision( ), Kazakhstan was import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption deleted from the list of third countries from which fishery (OJ No L 44 of 18.2.1999, p. 61). products may be imported into the Community, so that (3) Council Decision of 22 June 1995 on the conditions for drawing the previously authorised import of caviar was no longer up, for an interim period, provisional lists of third country permitted. establishments from which Member States are authorised to import certain products of animal origin, fishery products or live bivalve mulluscs (OJ No L 243 of 11.10.1995, p. 17). In the period November/December 1998 three veterinary inspectors instructed by the Commission carried out an investigative mission for examining conditions in Kazakhstan with respect to imports of horsemeat and of fist products other than caviar. Although caviar was not even a subject of investigation, the inspectors nevertheless proposed that Kazakhstan should be deleted from the list of authorised countries of import with respect also to imports of caviar. In the fourth recital in the preamble to the contested decision the Commission then indeed gave as reasons for the deletion of Kazakhstan the serious deficiencies found during the inspec- Action brought on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel against tion visit. the Council of the European Union

As a result of the contested decision, it was no longer possible (Case T-157/99) for the applicant to import into the Community the fresh caviar for which it had concluded a supply contract shortly before the adoption of the contested decision, and it has (1999/C 281/36) thereby incurred substantial damage.

In the applicant’s view, the contested decision infringes (Language of the case: French)

— the principle of sound administration, because it incor- An action against the Council of the European Union was rectly assesses the facts on which it is based and draws brought before the Court of First Instance of the European implausible conclusions from them, and Communities on 2 July 1999 by Helga Griesel, residing in Brussels, represented by Jacques Sambon and Pierre-Paul van — the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, Gehuchten, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service at since the Commission, after the inspection visit to Kazakh- the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim. stan by the veterinary inspectors, in Decision 99/136/EC(2) still left Kazakhstan on the list of authorised countries of import for caviar and then by the contested decision The applicant claims that the Court should: suddenly and without warning deleted Kazakhstan from the list, and also breaches — annul the defendant’s decision not to promote her to grade — essential procedural requirements, since — in breach of C 4 in the 1998 promotions procedure; Decision 95/408/EC(3) on which the contested decision is based — it does not appear from the minutes of the — order the defendant to pay all of the costs. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/19

Pleas in law and main arguments — declare that the applicant has been suffering from total permanent invalidity, making it impossible for him to carry out the duties corresponding to a post in his career The applicant entered the service of the General Secretariat of bracket, from 23 September 1998, the date of his request the Council as a grade C 5 official on 1 November 1995. that he be treated as suffering from invalidity, or such During the 1998 promotions procedure, the list of officials other date as the Court may determine; eligible for promotion and the number of posts to be filled by way of promotion were published by Staff Notice No 140/98 — order that an expert medical opinion be sought in order to on 5 November 1998. Amongst the 124 officials eligible for determine whether the applicant is suffering from total promotion from grade C 5, the applicant was in 43rd place in invalidity; order of seniority, out of all the grade C 5 officials having the requisite seniority under the Staff Regulations. Upon — make such ruling as to costs as may be appropriate. completion of the work of the advisory committee on category C promotions, a list of officials proposed for promotion to grade C 4, containing 38 names was sent to the appointing Pleas in law and main arguments authority, which decided to act on it. The applicant’s name did not appear on that list. By note dated 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted a request for the grant to him of an invalidity pension. In consequence of that request, the administration of the Court In support of her application, the applicant pleads: of Auditors referred the matter to the Invalidity Committee, which concluded that the applicant was not suffering from — infringement of Article 25 of the Staff Regulations and any complaint which could be regarded as total permanent failure to provide statement of reasons; invalidity making it impossible for his to perform his duties. The appointing authority of the Court of Auditors, noting that — infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations; decision, rejected his request that he be retired on grounds of — failure properly to carry out the promotions procedure; invalidity. — failure to observe the principle of equal treatment; and In support of his application, the applicant maintains: — manifest error of assessment. — that his current state of health shows that the sick leave proposed by the Invalidity Committee has not brought about an improvement in his health; — that the various medical certificates obtained from several specialists show that the treatment received at the Mondorf health spa has had no palpable result, that no significant improvement is to be expected in the applicant’s physical condition and moreover, that, from an osteoarticular and spinal standpoint, the applicant needs beyond all doubt to Action brought on 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen be retired from his duties on grounds of invalidity; against the Court of Auditors — that the decision of the Invalidity Committee should be reviewed, having regard to a new medical certificate dated (Case T-159/99) 10 May 1999 concluding that the treatment has not improved the applicant’s muscular condition. (1999/C 281/37)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Court of Auditors was brought before Action brought on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on and Others against the Council of the European Union 7 July 1999 by Bjarne Christiansen, residing at Nittel (Ger- many), represented by Alain Lorang, of the Luxembourg Bar, (Case T-160/99) with an address for service in Luxembourg at his Chambers, 51 Rue Albert 1er. (1999/C 281/38)

The applicant claims that the Court should: (Language of the case: French) — find that new factors have arisen since the Invalidity Committee adopted its decision on 30 October 1998; An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European — declare that the action brought by the applicant against Communities on 8 July 1999 by Gunnar Svantesson, Monica the decision of the European Court of Auditors of 7 April Hägg and Lena Hellsten, residing in Brussels, represented by 1999, by which it rejected the complaint lodged against Marc-Albert Lucas, of the Liège Bar (Belgium), with an address the decision adopted by the appointing authority of the for service at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL 30 Rue de Court of Auditors on 26 November 1998, is well founded; Cessange. C 281/20 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

The applicants claim that the Court should: Action brought on 8 July 1999 by the company Naviga- zione Libera del Golfo against the Commission of the — order, by way of measures of inquiry, the production of all European Communities documents relating to the work done by the selection board, including the tests, and the taking of evidence from Mr Fischer Holm, Mr Merilla and Mr Welander and the (Case T-161/99) other candidates in the competition; (1999/C 281/39) — annul all the steps taken in the competition; — annul the decisions of the selection board in competition LA/62 not to admit the applicants to the oral test and not (Language of the case: Italian) to mark their optional tests; An action against the Commission of the European Communi- — annul the Council’s decision of 8 April 1999 rejecting the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the administrative complaint lodged by the applicants on European Communities on 8 July 1999 by the company 8 December 1998; Navigazione Libera del Golfo, represented by Salvatore Raven- na and Emiliano Amato, of the Naples and Rome Bars, with — order the defendant to pay the costs. an address for service in Massalubrense (NA) at the chambers of S. Ravenna, 2 Corso S. Agata.

Pleas in law and main arguments The applicant claims that the Court should: — declare that the Commission has failed to fulfil its obli- The applicants, all of whom are Swedish nationals and grade gations under Article 93 of the EC Treaty (now Article 88 LA 7 officials of the Council, took part in the Council’s internal EC) by failing to adopt a decision on the complaint made competition LA/62 based on tests, which was held with a view by the applicant on 20 February 1999 concerning aid to filling three LA 5 posts of reviser/principal translator granted to the undertaking CA.RE.MAR (Napoli) by the (Swedish mother tongue). By letter of 9 September 1998 the Italian Government; selection board informed the applicants that it had decided not to admit them to the oral test, on the ground that they had — order the Commission to bear the applicant’s costs. not obtained at least 60 % of the maximum marks provided for by the competition notice in respect of the revision test. Consequently, the optional tests which they had done were Pleas in law and main arguments not marked. The applicant in the present case is a maritime transport In support of their application, the applicants plead: company operating high speed vessels (hydroplanes and catamarans) serving the islands in the Bay of Naples. It — infringement of Article 3 of Annex III to the Staff Regu- challenges the system of State aid introduced by Law No 684 lations and failure to observe the principles of objectivity of 20 December 1974 in so far as it relates specifically to and equality in the assessment of the candidates, first, in CA.RE.MAR., the only company operating in the Bay of Naples that no member of the selection board had a perfect which benefits from such aid. knowledge of the target language, namely Swedish, and, second, in that the members of the selection board did not have a perfect command of the source languages, in According to the applicant, the subsidies in question are particular French and English, alternatively that an insuf- unlimited and are intended to make up the operating losses ficient number of them possessed such a command; which the recipient — a public concern — registers every year; the result being that the aid enables the company to escape — infringement of the essential rules governing the work of bankruptcy which would otherwise be inevitable. In addition, the selection boeard and failure to observe the principle of the aid in question is operating aid, which is clearly inconsistent equal treatment, inasmuch as two assessors lacked a perfect with the Commission Communication on Community guide- command of all the source languages; lines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring firms in difficulty(1) and the Community guidelines on State aid to — infringement of the essential rules governing the work of maritime transport(2). the selection board and failure to observe the principle of objectivity in the assessment of candidates, such that the assessors, who were colleagues of the applicants, were able On this point, it is asserted that, between 1992 and 1997, the to penetrate the anonymity attaching to the papers; amount of aid has averaged something in the region of ITL 40 billion, whereas revenue from ticket sales is just a little over — failure to comply with the competition notice, in that the 50 % of that figure. selection board instructed the assessors to allow only a limited number of candidates to proceed to take the oral The applicant submitted its complaint on 20 February 1999. test; Because of the particular urgency of the matter, in the complaint itself the applicant requested the defendant to take — irregularity in the composition of the selection board. action within the period of two months laid down in Article 175 of the EC Treaty (now Article 232). Since no decision was adopted within that period, the applicant brought the present action. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/21

According to the applicant, because of the classic nature of the the Staff Committee of 22 October 1997 and of paragraph 2 contested aid and the fact that it is clearly operating and rescue of Article 2 of the General Notice for Election published by aid, the said period of two months may be considered the electoral office on 27 January 1999, inasmuch as 21 per- reasonable. sons not qualifying as electors under the applicable rules voted in the contested elections and those votes may have affected the results as regards the allocation of the number of seats on (1) OJ C 368 of 23.12.94. the various lists. (2) OJ C 205 of 5.7.1997. They also plead infringement of the first paragraph of Article 1 and Article 4 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations, of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) and Article 6 of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of the Staff Committee, of Article 14(b) and (c) of the procedure adopted by the general meeting on 19 January 1999 for the election of the Brussels section of the Staff Committee, and of the second Action brought on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele, paragraph of Article 2 and the second paragraph of Article 4 Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux against the of the General Notice for Election in that 27 postal votes Commission of the European Communities arrived out of time because the electors concerned received their ballot papers late. (Case T-162/99) Lastly, the applicants plead infringement of the final paragraph (1999/C 281/40) of Article 14 of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of the Staff Committee and of Article 32 of the internal rules of the Brussels local staff committee of 14 April 1990, in that the appointments to the Central Staff Committee (Language of the case: French) and to the other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and administrative bodies were made by a local staff committee An action against the Commission of European Communities constituted in accordance with the results of elections which was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European were vitiated by irregularities. In the applicants’ view, those Communities on 19 July 1999 by Luigia Dricot-Daniele, irregularities may have altered the distribution of seats as Patricia De Palma and Claudine Hamptaux, residing in Brussels, between the different lists, and may consequently have altered represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar, with an the distribution of seats on the Central Staff Committee and in address for service at the Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue the other administrative bodies or organs set up under the Heinrich Heine. Staff Regulations appointments to which were to be made by the local staff committee. The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul the elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999 to the Staff Committee of the local Brussels section and the various appointments and proposals for appointments to the Central Staff Committee and to the other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and administrative bodies Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy against the made by that committee following those elections; Council of the European Union — in so far as may be necessary: first, take note of the refusal by the Commission to annul the aforementioned elections (Case T-164/99) and declare that the Staff Committee of the local Brussels section, constituted in accordance with the results of the (1999/C 281/41) elections held on 9, 10 and 11 March 1999, as proclaimed by the electoral office on 23 March 1999, has not been validly constituted and, consequently, that the appoint- (Language of the case: French) ments and or proposals for appointments made by that committee to the Central Staff Committee and to the An action against the Council of the European Union was other organs set up under the Staff Regulations and brought before the Court of First Instance of the European administrative bodies are invalid; and, second, annul the Communities on 9 July 1999 by Alain Leroy, residing at rejection of the complaints lodged by the applicants; Grimbergen (Belgium), represented by Georges Vandersanden, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg — order the defendant to pay the costs. at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange.

The applicant claims that the Court should: Pleas in law and main arguments — acknowledge the illegality of the decision of the Council of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for The applicants plead, first, infringement of the fourth para- the integration of the Schengen Secretarial into the General graph of Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations of Secretariat of the Council, and consequently annul the officials, of Article 7 of the Conditions of employment of other same; servants of the European Communities, of Articles 4(2) and 6 of the Rules laying down the composition and operation of — order the defendant to pay the costs. C 281/22 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Pleas in law and main arguments when fitted by the second applicant (7Q7) with new engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three may not be placed on The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case EU registers as from 4th May 2000 and even if registered T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo(1). The pleas in law and main outside the EU may not be operated to and from EU airports arguments are the same as those advanced in that case. as from 1st April 2002. None of these re-engined 707s would be ready for registration in the EU before 4th May 2000. This is despite the fact that these re-engined 707s would meet noise The applicant pleads, in support of his application, infringe- pollution emission standards applicable to other aeroplanes ment of Article 7 of Protocol No 2 annexed to the Treaty of whose continued operation is permitted under the contested Amsterdam, of Articles 27 and 39 of the Staff Regulations and regulation. of the principle of non-discrimination, together, in the present case, with an error of law committed by the Council in the formulation of the decision of 1 May 1999. That error consists, in particular, in the absence of any objective justification for The applicants contend in this regard that the by-pass criterion using the date of 2 October 1997 as a criterion for taking into does not determine the noise or pollution emissions of any consideration the names of persons working in the Schengen re-engined aeroplane. The use of a by-pass ratio criterion does Secretariat for the purposes of their integration into the said not relate to any justifiable technical objective and should be General Secretariat, and also in the manner in which the considered as arbitrary. Moreover, the regulation imposes no applicant’s contract for an indefinite period was brought to an noise standard and would prejudice Omega’s aeroplanes even end. if they were totally silent. They submit that Omega’s aeroplanes as re-engined by 7Q7 will be less, or at least no more, noisy than many aeroplanes permitted to continue in operation in (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal. the EU under the contested regulation, and that they will also produce less pollution emissions than other aircraft that will be allowed to operate for many years in the EU.

On this basis, the applicants state that the contested regulation: Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc. against the Council of the European — reduces immediately the value of Omega’s fleet of 7Q7 by Union some 30 % at least;

(Case T-165/99) — writes off both applicants’ substantial investment in the 7Q7 test and recertification programme; (1999/C 281/42) — prevents the implementation of the applicants’ existing re-engining programme for five aircraft which has been (Language of the case: English) under way since 1992, and their planned re-engining of other aircraft, with a consequential loss of increased An action against the Council of the European Union was revenue for engined aircraft with the extended life of those brought before the Court of First Instance of the European aircraft; and Communities on 9 July 1999 by Omega Air Limited and Seven Q Seven Inc., represented by David Vaughan QC, Aidan — causes the applicants loss and damage, including costs Robertson and Michael Offer, with an address for service in incurred in attempting to ensure that the contested regu- Luxembourg at the Chambers of Faltz & Kremer, 6 rue Heine. lation did not exclude aircraft re-engined with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three. The applicants claim that the Court should: — annul Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999 in so far as it applies to re-engined aircraft having a by-pass ratio of less The applicants contend that the contested regulation infringes than three; the obligation under Article 235 of the Treaty to state the reasons for measures, the general principles of non- — award damages pursuant to Articles 235 and 288(2) of the discrimination, proportionality and protection of the legit- EC Treaty; imate expectations, as well as the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade, the Agreement of Technical Barriers to Trade and — order the Council to pay the applicants’ costs. the Chicago Convention.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants in the present case seek the annulment of the (1) OJ 1999 L 115 of 4 May 1999, p. 1. Council Regulation (EC) No 925/1999(1), in so far as it prohibits aircraft which have been re-engined with engines having a by-pass ratio of less than three but allowing them if the by-pass ratio is three or more. As a result of that regulation, Boeing 707 aeroplanes owned by the first applicant (Omega) 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/23

Action brought on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres The applicant claims that the Court should: de Dios and Others against the Council of the European Union — annul the decision taken by the selection board in competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicant from the (Case T-166/99) tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the said decision being contained in a letter sent to the applicant on 16 June 1999; (1999/C 281/43) — consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done subsequently in the procedure relating to competition (Language of the case: French) No COM/A/10/98 which are vitiated by illegality;

An action against the Council of the European Union was — order the Commission to pay the costs. brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 9 July 1999 by Luis Fernando Andres de Dios, Suzanne Kitlas and Jacques Verraes, residing in Brussels (Belgium), and Maria Soledad Garcia Retortillo, residing at Pleas in law and main arguments Càceres (Spain), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta- Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of The applicant was a candidate in open competition No Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. COM/A110/98 for the constitution of a reserve list for the recruitment of administrators in career bracket A 7/A 6 in the The applicants claim that the Court should: fields of external relations and the management of aid to third countries. By letter of 16 June 1999, the selection board in the — annul Council Decision 1999/307/EC of 1 May 1999; competition informed the applicant that although she had obtained the minimum number of marks required for each of — order the defendant to pay the costs. the four tests, she had not been placed amongst the top 200 candidates. In order to be included amongst those top 200 candidates, the applicant had to have obtained 80.10 marks, Pleas in law and main arguments that is to say, a further 3.72 marks. Consequently, the contested decision excluded the applicant from admission to the The contested decision is the same as that in issue in Case subsequent tests in the competition. T-107/99 Garcia Retortillo(1). The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those advanced in that case. The applicant maintains that: The applicants argue, in particular, that, since the contested decision was adopted on 30 April 1999, that is to say, on a — the principle of equal treatment was disregarded in several date on which neither the Treaty of Amsterdam nor Protocol respects, both when the pre-selection tests took place and No 2 thereto had yet entered into force, it must be held in the when those tests were marked; present case that the decision in question lacks any legal basis. — the pre-selection tests are vitiated by a twofold procedural irregularity, which does not guarantee anonymity in the (1) Not yet published in the Official Journal. processing of the tests or ensure that those tests will not be subject to manipulation;

— the competition notice is irregular, in that it disregards the principle of equal treatment and Annex III to the Staff Regulations;

Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti against — by providing incomplete information, the selection board the Commission of the European Communities failed to comply with the obligation to provide reasons;

(Case T-167/99) — by failing to ensure that the pre-selection tests were held in a proper fashion and that the candidates were treated in that context in a strictly non-discriminatory manner, the (1999/C 281/44) defendant infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations; and

(Language of the case: French) — the defendant committed a breach of the principle of good management and sound administration, which was further An action against the Commission of the European Communi- aggravated by the fact that the pre-selection tests had ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the already had to be annulled once before on account of European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Carla Giulietti, irregularities. residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. C 281/24 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Action brought on 13 July 1999 by Diputacio´ n Foral de represented by Mark Brealey and Jonathan Lawrence, with an Alava against the Commission of the European Communi- address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt ties & Medernach, 8-10 rue Mathias Hardt.

(Case T-168/99) The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the contested decision on the grounds set out in the (1999/C 281/45) application and; — order the Commission to pay the costs of the action, (Language of the case: Spanish) including those of the applicant.

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Pleas in law and main arguments European Communities on 13 July 1999 by Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava, represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and Begon˜ a The applicant, a public limited company incorporated in Uriarte Valiente, lawyers, with an address for service c/o England, has already raised similar issues in four applications Cuatrecasas Abogados, 78 Avenue d’Auderghem, 1040 Brus- against the Commission, currently pending before the Court sels. of First Instance of the European Communities(1).

The applicant claims that the Court should: By the present application, the applicant submits that the Commission has purported to approve aid to be granted to — annul the Commission Decision of 31 March 1999 in so the Spanish coal mining industry in 1999. According to the far as it initiates a State aid proceeding against the financial applicant, the contested decision should be declared void in measures provided for in Normas Forales (regional regu- whole or in part for the following reasons: lations) 22/1994 and 24/1996 and requires the Spanish State to suspend the payment of sums in pursuance thereof — the Commission has no competence to approve the aid to the company Ramondı´nS.A.; under Article 1(1) of the Code unless the aid complies with Articles 2 to 9 of the Code; — order the Commission to pay all the costs. — the approval of State aid infringed an essential procedural requirement and/of infringed the ECSC Treaty and/or a Pleas in law and main arguments rule of law relating to its application; — the Commission has failed properly or at all to provide in By the present action, the applicant contests the decision of the contested decision the reasons for authorising the aid the Commission by which it found that certain financial in several cases. measures adopted in relation to Ramondı´n S.A. constitute State aid incompatible with the common market. (1) See cases T-110/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 38) ; T-111/98 (OJ C 299 of 26/9/98, p. 39) ; T-12/99 (OJ C 86 of 27/3/99, p. 25) ; The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those T-63/99 (OJ C 160 of 5/6/99, p. 26). advanced in Case T-127/95 Territorio Histo´ rico de Alava, Arabako Foru Aldundia — Diputacio´ n Foral de Alava v Commission.

Action brought on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc against the Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-171/99)

(Case T-170/99) (1999/C 281/47)

(1999/C 281/46) (Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- (Language of the case: English) ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 July 1999 by British Steel plc, An action against the Commission of the European Communi- represented by Philip G.H. Collins and Matthew Levitt, with an ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the address for service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Marc European Communities on 20 July 1999 by RJB Mining plc, Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/25

The applicant claims that the Court should: accordance with Article 34 of the Treaty. On 23 April 1999, the Commission repaid to the applicant the sum of EUR pursuant to Article 40 CS: 12 million. It declared however that it considered that it was not required to pay interest on this sum. — order the Commission to pay to British Steel the sum of GBP 3 533 474, or such other sum as the Court The applicant submits that, having imposed and received deems appropriate: payment of a fine which was, to the extent identified by the Court, unlawful, the Commission has wrongly refused to pay the applicant pecuniary reparation in the form of interest on — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest the fine paid by it. As a direct result of this attitude of the at a rate which the Court considers to be just in all the Commission, which constitutes a ‘wrongful act or omission’ circumstances on the sum of GBP 3 533 474 (or such within the meaning of Article 40 CS, the applicant has suffered other sum, as aforesaid) from 24 April 1999 until final considerable monetary loss. The Commission should therefore judgment of this Court; be ordered to pay it compensation equivalent to its loss of earnings on the sum of ECU/EUR 12 million from the date — order the Commission to pay to British Steel interest when the fine was paid by it until 23 April 1999, together at 8 % on such compensation as the Court orders to be with interest on that sum until the date of payment. paid under subparagraphs (a) and (b) above as from the date of the Court’s final judgment in this case until In the alternative, the applicant submits that the Commission payment thereof; is liable to it pursuant Article 34 CS. According to the provisions of that article, where a decision of the Commission or, in the alternative: pursuant to Article 34 CS: has been declared void by the Court, the Commission should take the necessary measures to comply with the judgement. If, within a reasonable time, the Commission has failed to take — declare that Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC was the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, proceedings vitiated by faults of such nature as to render the for damages may be instituted. In the present case, the Community fiable; Commission has failed to take the necessary measures to comply with the judgment since it has not effected a full — declare that, as a result of the Commission’s fault, restitutio in integrum by compensating the applicant for its loss British steel has suffered direct and special harm in of earnings on the sum of fine unlawfully imposed by the being unlawfully deprived of the use of ECU/EUR Commission. 12 000 000 from the date of payment of that sum to the Commission on 2 June 1994; (1) OJ 1994 L 116/1. — refer the case to the Commission and order it to adopt appropriate measures in order to ensure equitable redress for the harm directly resulting from the Com- mission’s conduct, and to pay appropriate damages as far as may be necessary;

and in either case: Action brought on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pentericci against the Commission of the European Communities — order the Commission to pay British Steel’s costs. (Case T-172/99)

Pleas in law and main arguments (1999/C 281/48)

The applicant states that on 16 February 1994 the Commission adopted Decision 94/215/ECSC relating to a proceeding (Language of the case: Italian) pursuant to Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agree- ments and concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams (the ‘Decision’)(1). A fine of ECU 32 mil- An action against the Commission of the European Communi- lion was imposed on the applicant. On 13 April 1994, the ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the applicant lodged an application for the annulment of the European Communities on 26 July 1999 by Francesca Pente- Decision al the Court of First Instance (Case T-151/94). ricci, represented by Marcello Pentericci, of the Ancona Bar, Nevertheless, on 2 June 1994, it paid to the Commission the with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of entirety of the fine imposed on it. Jean Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden.

The applicant claims that the Court should: On 11 March 1999, the Court delivered its judgment in Case T-151/94. In the judgment, the Court sets the amount of the — annul the decision by which the selection board in fine imposed on the applicant at EUR 20 million. For the claim competition No COM A/12/98 refused to admit her to the for interest, the Court notes that it is for the Commission to written tests in the competition, and consequently order take the necessary steps to comply with the judgment, in that she be admitted thereto; C 281/26 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

— order the selection board to pay compensation for the — annul any recruitments made by the Commission in damage caused, in such amount as the Court shall consider consequence of competition No COM/A/15/98 and on the fair and reasonable; basis of the lists of suitable candidates published in the Official Journal on 3 July 1999; — order the selection board to pay the costs, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure. — order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the decision of the selection board in The applicants contest, in particular, the manner in which competition No COM A/12/98 by which it decided, on the competition No COM/A/15/98 was conducted and the results ground that she allegedly lacked the minimum requisite thereof. They maintain in that connection that the competition professional experience, as provided for in the competition notice provided for two options, namely ‘fraud prevention’ notice, not admit her to the written tests. and ‘justice and home affairs’. According to the applicants, the tests in respect of the ‘justice and home affairs’ option related In support of her claims, the applicant advances the following very extensively to the combatting of fraud, with the result pleas: that there was discrimination in favour of candidates who had chosen the first option. — infringement and misapplication of Article III(3) of the notice of competition; In support of their claims, the applicants plead: — breach of the obligation to provide a statement of reasons; — infringement of the terms of the competition notice; and — contravention of the principle of equality between candi- — failure to have regard to the general principle of sound dates; administration and transparency. — failure to observe the principle of sound administration; According to the applicant, the competition notice recognised and as valid evidence of professional experience periods of appren- — misuse of powers in the present case. ticeship, specialisation or professional training, apart from supplementary training periods. She maintains in that regard In the latter regard, the applicants maintain that the defendant that the Commission failed to take account of all the certificates used the procedure for pre-selection on the basis of the and attestations contained in the competition file. At all events, documentation in order to attempt to eliminate the partici- had the defendant considered that documentation was unclear, pation of Mr Mazuel as a candidate in the competition. In it should at least have asked for explanatory clarification in addition, it is clear from a comparison between the directory relation to it. of Commission staff and the names of the persons included in the list of suitable candidates that the competition was organised with a view to offering establishment to contractual agents of the Commission and not with a view to the external recruitment of true specialists possessing skills and qualifications corresponding to the objectives publicised in the notice of competition. Action brought on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm and Philippe Mazuel against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-173/99)

(1999/C 281/49) Action brought on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile and Others against the Commission of the European Com- munities (Language of the case: French) (Case T-174/99) An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the (1999/C 281/50) European Communities on 29 July 1999 by Gilbert Elkaïm residing in Paris, and Philippe Mazuel, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Ravailhe, of the Brussels Bar, with an (Language of the case: French) address for service at the latter’s Chambers, 6 Rue Hydraulique, Brussels. An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the The applicants claim that the Court should: European Communities on 30 July 1999 by Ana Caprile, — annul open competition No COM/A/15/98; residing in Belgium, Fabrizio Dell’Olio, residing in Italy, and Konrad Fuhrmann and Olivier Radelet, residing in Belgium, — annul the lists of suitable candidates published, following represented by Georges Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the that competition, on 3 July 1999 in the Official Journal (OJ Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the C 187, p. 22); offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/27

The applicants claim that the Court should: In support of its claim, the applicant submits that the contested decision: — annul the decisions taken by the selection board in competition No COM/A/10/98 excluding the applicants — infringes Article 253 EC, in so far as, in the circumstances from the tests subsequent to the pre-selection tests, the of the present case, it is not sufficient for the Commission said decisions being contained in letters sent to the merely to state that Article 82 EC does not prevent an applicants on 16 June 1999; undertaking which has a monopoly from expanding into other areas. The applicant stresses that, to its knowledge, — consequently, annul all of the steps taken and acts done the decision is the first one in which the Commission subsequently in the procedure relating to competition expresses its views on the question whether an undertaking No COM/A/10/98; enjoying an exclusive right to perform a service of general — order the Commission to pay the costs. interest can use the profits deriving from the reserved market to acquire control of an undertaking in a neigh- bouring liberalised country. Pleas in law and main arguments — ignores the fact that the use of profits deriving from an exclusive right which is granted solely in order to ensure The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case performance of a service of general economic interest T-172/99 Pentericci v Commission(1). would constitute an abuse of a dominant position, prohibited under Article 82 EC.

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal. (1) OJ C 340, of 7.11.98, p. 25.

Action brought on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA against the Commission of the European Communities Action brought on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa against the Council of the European Union (Case T-175/99) (Case T-176/99) (1999/C 281/51) (1999/C 281/52)

(Language of the case: English) (Language of the case: French) An action against the Commission of the European Union was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European An action against the Council of the European Union was Communities on 2 August 1999 by UPS Europe NV/SA, brought before the Court of First Instance of the European represented by T.R. Ottervanger and D. Arts, with an address Communities on 4 August 1999 by Colette Jemaa, residing for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loeff Claeys in Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Verbeke, 5 rue Charles Martel. Greta-Françoise Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brus- sels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. The applicant claims that the Court should: — annul the Commission’s decision of 10 June 1999 rejecting The applicant claims that the Court should: the applicant’s complaint; — annul the decision rejecting the applicant’s request for — order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by the authorisation to rent and occupy, from 1 April 1998, an applicant in the present proceedings; apartment corresponding to the needs of her family at a monthly rent of CHF 4 800 plus service charges; — take such further action as the Court may deem appropriate. — order the defendant to pay an allowance corresponding to the amount of that rent plus service charges from 1 April 1998 and interest at the annual rate of 6 % from the date Pleas in law and main arguments on which the rental payments in question fell due; — order the defendant in addition to pay, by way of The applicant in the present case, which is also the applicant compensation for the material damage suffered, the sum in Case T-127/98 UPS Europe v Commission,(1) challenges the of CHF 100 216, plus the sum of 50 000 euro by way of Commission’s decision rejecting its complaint, but only that compensation for the non-material damage suffered by the part of it which concerns Article 82 EC and relates to the applicant and her family; concentration by means of which Deutsche Post AG (DPAG) intends to acquire control of DHL International Ltd. — order the defendant to pay the costs. C 281/28 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

Pleas in law and main arguments Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant in the present case, who is also the applicant in Case T-20/98 Jemaa v Council(1), contests the decision of the appointing authority rejecting her request that it bear the The applicants, who have already made an application to the expense of an apartment corresponding to the needs of her Commission for review of its tacit or implied refusal to grant family by reimbursing the amount of her monthly rent. access to certain minutes of the Advisory Committee on VAT (the VAT Committee) established by Article 29 of the Sixth VAT Directive(1), are now attacking the Commission’s express The decision refusing her request is based on the grounds, and definitive decision refusing ‘access to the minutes in first, that the applicant was at the material time occupying question’. accommodation which was owned by her, and, second, that she was not required, for reasons connected with the performance of her duties, to move her place of residence outside Geneva, where she had been sent. The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes the Code of Conduct attached to Commission Decision In support of her claims, the applicant pleads infringement of 94/90/ECSC/EC/Euratom (Access Code) and/or Article 253 EC Article 71 of the Staff Regulations and of Articles 5, 18 and on the following grounds: 23 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations, together with failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the welfare and interests of officials. She maintains in that regard that none of — The contested decision fails to indicate the means of the aforementioned provisions makes reimbursement of the redress, and thus infringe a mandatory rule of law relating actual cost of the renting of accommodation by an official to the application of the Treaty; posted outside the Community conditional on a change of residence for reasons connected with the performance of his or her duties, or on the official concerned not being the owner — The third paragraph of the contested decision, in which of real property in the place of employment. the refusal to allow access is expressed, is utterly devoid of reasons. Should, however, the contested decision be construed as meaning that the defendant refuses access to (1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998, p. 35. the minutes in question because the rule of confidentiality extends to the minutes of meetings, then the applicants submit that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned;

— The contested decision does not contain any particular reasons for which the minutes in question fall under a relevant head of exception to the general right to and Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion Elder principle of the fullest possible public access to documents. and Robert Dale Elder against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-178/99) For the sake of completeness, the applicants submit that where consultation of statutory committee (such as the VAT Committee or a ‘comitology’ committee) is, as here, an (1999/C 281/53) essential procedural requirement, the non-observance of which leads to the annulment of a legislative act, there can never be any justification for refusing to produce proof of such (Language of the case: English) consultation, in the form of a probative contemporaneous report (such as minutes), since in the absence of proof the legislative act in question must be declared void. That being An action against the Commission of the European Communi- so, not only is the contested decision manifestly invalid, but ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the the very validity of the UK legislation in question would be European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Sonia Marion endangered if the defendant were to persist in its refusal to Elder and Robert Dale Elder, represented by Scott Crosby, of grant access to the minutes as requested by the applicants. Kemmler Rapp Böhlke & Crosby, 9 Rond-Point Schuman, Brussels.

The applicants claim that the Court should: (1) Case T-78/99 (Elder and Elder v Commission), OJ C 174 of 19 June — annul the decision of the defendant dated 8 June 1999 1999, p. 11. refusing access to the minutes of the VAT Committee as specified in the application for review dated 6 January 1999; — order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance. 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/29

Action brought on 6 August 1999 by the company Action brought on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas Sud Pesca against the Commission of the European against the Commission of the European Communities Communities (Case T-180/99) (Case T-179/99) (1999/C 281/55)

(1999/C 281/54) (Language of the case: French)

(Language of the case: Italian) An action against the Commission of the European Communi- ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 6 August 1999 by Vassilios Tsarnavas, residing in Brussels, represented by Nicolas Lhoëst, An action against the Commission of the European Communi- of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange. European Communities on 6 August 1999 by the company Sud Pesca, represented by Gianfranco Amenta and Massimo Merola, of the Palermo and Rome Bars, with an address for The applicant claims that the Court should: service in Luxembourg at the chambers of Alain Lorang, 51 Rue Albert 1er. — annul the implicit decision of the Commission rejecting the complaint lodged by the applicant under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations by which he contested first, the The applicant claims that the Court should: implicit rejection of his request for rectification of his administrative status as regards the date on which the — annul the contested decision; Commission’s decision concerning his reassignment took effect, and, second, the list of officials promoted to grade — order the Commission to pay the costs of the present A 4, published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 of action, including the applicant’s legal costs. 30 October 1998, in which his name did not appear;

— consequently, order that the 1998 procedure for promotion to grade A 4 is to be annulled as regards the applicant; Pleas in law and main arguments — order the defendant to pay all the costs. The applicant contests the decision of 24 April 1999, Ref. SG(99)D/2842, by which the Commission rejected an application for exemption from post-clearance recovery, alterna- Pleas in law and main arguments tively, for remission, of customs duties relating to two consignments of tuna imported from Turkey under IM4 certificates nos 356/N dated 22 June 1994 and 193/U dated The applicant, a grade A 5 official of the Commission of the 29 May 1995. European Communities, was seconded, as Vice-President of the local Staff Committee, from DG IV to the Staff Represen- tation unit attached to DG IX. On 2 July 1997 the Commission In support of its claim, the applicant argues that the Com- decided to reassign the applicant to DG IV with retroactive mission breached and wrongly applied Article 220(2)(b) effect from 1 May 1997. That decision was not notified to the and Article 239 of the Community Customs Code. In this applicant until 21 October 1997, on which date he resumed connection, the applicant is of the view that the Turkish his duties in DG IV. On 30 October 1998 the administration authorities, even after the checks carried out by the Community published in ‘Administrative Notices’ No 1049 the list of delegation in June 1996, confirmed the validity of the ATR.1 officials promoted to grade A 4, in which the applicant’s name certificates issued. Even if it were possible that those authorities did not appear. issued the certificates of origin in error, such an error could be characterised as being a ‘substantive error’. In support of his application, the applicant advances the following pleas: The applicant maintains, that there is in the present inter alia, — absence of a statement of reasons; case a ‘special situation’ and that no fraud or obvious negligence can be imputed to it. — delay on the part of the Commission in sending to the applicant the decision concerning his reassignment;

— breach of the principle of non-retroactivity and misuse of powers; C 281/30 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 2.10.1999

— failure to comply with the duty to have regard for the — annul and/or declare void the call for tenders, the invitation welfare and interests of officials; and consequently the whole selection procedure, or, in any event, annul the procedure itself and/or declare it void, — prejudice caused to the applicant as a result of his secondment to the Staff Representation unit, contrary to Article 1 of Annex II to the Staff Regulations. in the alternative: By adopting a reassignment decision having retroactive effect, when there was no justification or need for such retroactivity — establish and declare the Commission to be liable for the and when that retroactivity did not correspond to the situation losses and damage sufered by the applicant by reason of in reality, and by attaching to that decision an artificial date on and, in any event, as a result of its participation in the which it was to come into effect, being 4 days prior to the procedure. crucial date, the Commission indubitably caused the applicant to suffer damage.

For the purposes of the 1998 promotion procedure, therefore, the applicant was no longer attached to the Staff Represen- Pleas in law and main arguments tation unit, whereas, if the reassignment had officially taken effect after 5 May 1997, he would have been certain, in the context of the 1998 promotion procedure, of being promoted by DG IX or, failing that, at least of being awarded priority The applicant in this case is the research centre which devised points which DG IV would have had to take into account the ‘PROSCAP’ project to support active citizenship in the the following year. Consequently, the Commission failed to Pisa area, submitted as number 15 under the European comply with its duty to have regard for the welfare and Commission’s pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’. interests of officials and perpetrated a manifest misuse of By the contested decision the defendant rejected the project powers. claiming to have calculated that the operating costs of the ‘initial tender’ were more than 20 % of the total budget, contrary to the requirements of the rules applicable. By failing to give reasons for the implicit decisions which it adopted rejecting the applicant’s request and complaint, the Commission infringed Article 25 of the Staff Regulations. In support of its claims the applicant submits that the operating costs of the project are not more than 18 % of the total amount of the budget requested. It is claimed in that connection that the Commission adopted the contested decision on the basis of irrelevant economic data deriving from the application file, thus breaching established rules for the tendering procedure. The defendant therefore excluded the applicant, erroneously Action brought on 9 August 1999 by Centro di Ricerca e taking as the basis for its assessment of the final figure, not the Documentazione Febbraio 74 against the Commission of project completed on 5 March 1999, but the application file the European Communities submitted on 15 October 1999, which had the different purpose and object of providing the Commission with infor- (Case T-181/99) mation about the professional and financial suitability of the applicant body, the socio-economic background against which the project would be carried out and the possible quality (1999/C 281/56) of the mechanism proposed for the selection, control and management of individual appropriations. (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Commission of the European Communi- On this basis the applicant maintains that the contested ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the decision must be considered flawed and unlawful for breach European Communities on 9 August 1999 by Centro di of procedural rules and of the duty of care in administrative Ricerca e Documentazione Febbraio 74, represented by Ugo proceedings, erroneous, illogical and not in conformity with Mastelloni, of the Rome Bar, with an address for service in previous acts and decisions of the Commission itself. Luxembourg at the Chambers of Yves Prussen, 2, Place Winston Churchill. It also submits that the invitation to tender and to submit The applicant claims that the Court should: proposals under the pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’ did not in any way stipulate that possible flaws in — annul and/or declare void the decision of the European the application file could constitute reasons for excluding one Commission — DG V — Employment and European of the tenderers from the procedure. Social Fund — Political development and coordination under Article 6 of the ESF, notified by formal letter 8096 of 21 June 1999 to exclude the applicant from the tendering procedure for the pilot action ‘Local capital for social purposes’, and all connected and consequential acts prejudicial to the interests of the applicant, 2.10.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 281/31

Action brought on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media Furthermore, the applicant claims that the Commission has Ireland Limited against the Commission of the European failed to give any reasons as to why an error on the part of the Communities Irish customs authorities which it acknowledges for part of the period covered by the Decision should reasonably have been (Case T-186/99) detected by the applicant and, in finding that the applicant could reasonably have detected the Irish authorities’ error, has infringed Article 5(2) by failing to have regard or adequate (1999/C 281/57) regard to (a) the nature of the error, (b) the professional experience of the applicant and (c) the degree of care exercised by the applicant. (Language of the case: English) The applicant also argues that, in refusing remission in respect An action against the Commission of the European Communi- of the import duties in question, the Commission has infringed ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the Article 13 of Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 and failed to give European Communities on 17 August 1999 by Saehan Media reasons for its decision. In particular, the Commission has Ireland Limited, represented by Damian Collins and Gerald ignored the general equitable nature of the remission procedure FitzGerald with an address for service in Luxembourg at the provided for in Article 13 by failing properly to take account Chambers of Stéphane Le Goueff, 9 avenue Guillaume. of the conduct of the Irish authorities and its impact on the applicant and of the situation of the applicant during the The applicant claims that the Court should: periods in question. In addition, the Commission has relied on an incorrect understanding of the concept of ‘obvious — annul Commission Decision C(99) 968 of 28 April 1999 negligence’and requires an excessively high level of care on the in its entirety; part of the trader concerned. Finally, the Commission, while finding the existence of a special situation for part of the — in the alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it relates period covered by the decision and not finding any deception to import duties in respect of the period January 1992 to on the applicant’s part at any time, has nevertheless denied February 1993; remission although it has also not made any finding of ‘obvious — in the further alternative, annul the Decision in so far as it negligence’on the applicant’s part during the period in which a relates to import duties in respect of the period January to special situation is acknowledged or, if it has made such a October 1992; finding of ‘obvious negligence’, it has failed to provide the reasons on which this finding of obvious negligence is based. — order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the contested Decision the Commission ordered the Removal from the register of Case T-169/97(1) post-clearance recovery by Ireland of import duties from the applicant and refused remission in respect of those import (1999/C 281/58) duties. The applicant argues that in ordering the post-clearance recovery of the duties, the Commission has infringed Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC)No 1697/79 and failed to give reasons (Language of the case: Italian) for its Decision. In particular, the Commission has incorrectly By order of 19 July 1999 the President of the First Chamber of relied on a concept of ‘active error’in applying Article 5(2) and has failed to appreciate the extent to which, during certain the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has periods covered by the Decision, the Irish authorities commit- ordered the removal from the register of Case T-169/97: Farine ted an error by continuing to accept customs entries by the Laziali SpA v Commission of the European Communities. applicant bearing a tariff classification which those authorities knew or should have known was incorrect. (1) OJ C 228 of 26.7.1997.