ISSN 0378-6986 Official Journal C 380 Volume 37 of the European Communities 31 December 1994
English edition Information and Notices
Notice No Contents Page
I Information
Court of Justice
COURT OF JUSTICE
94/C 380/01 Judgment of the Court of 6 December 1994 in Case C-406/92 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal ): The owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship Maciej Rataj (Brussels Convention — Lis pendens — Related actions — Relationship with the International Convention relating to the arrest of seagoing ships) 1
94/C 380/02 Judgment of the Court of 6 December 1994 in Case C-410/92 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Court of Appeal ): Elsie Rita Johnson v. Chief Adjudication Officer (Equal treatment for men and women in matters ofsocial securiy — National procedural time limits) 2
94/C 380/03 Judgment of the Court of 6 December 1994 in Case C-277/93 : Commission of the European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services — Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods — Remuneration) 1
94/C 380/04 Case C-288/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Value Added Tax Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre , by order of that tribunal of 26 September 1994 , in the case of Argos Distributors Limited against the Commissioners of Customs and Excise .... 3
94/C 380/05 Case C-302/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Queen's Bench Division , Divisional Court, by order of that court of 25 July 1 994 , in the case of The Queen against the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex-parte : British Telecommunications pic , Interested Parties : Mercury Communications Limited and Kingston Communications ( Hull ) pic 3
2 ( Continued overleaf ) Notice No Contents ( continued ) page
94/C 380/06 Case C-304/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Terni by order of that court of 27 October 1994 in the criminal proceedings before it against Euro Tombesi and Adino Tombesi 4
94/C 380/07 Case C-306/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour Administrate d'Appel de Lyon ( Fourth Chamber ) by judgment of that court of 26 October 1994 in the case of Regie Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari v. Ministre du Budget 5
94/C 380/08 Case C-307/94 : Action brought on 21 November 1994 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic 5
94/C 380/09 Case C-309/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce de Lyon by a judgment of that court of 14 November 1994 in the case of Nissan France SA and Others v. Jean Luc Dupasquier, ' Garage Sport Auto' and Others 6
94/C 380/10 Case C-3 10/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de Commerce de Saintes by a judgment of that court of 3 November 1994 in the case of Garage Ardon SA, Bernard Martin, Relais de Saintonge Sari and Bernard Menet Sari v. Garage Trabisco SA 6
94/C 380/11 Case C-312/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of 19 August 1994 in the case of Iris Zachow v. Land Nordrhein-Westfalen 7
94/C 380/12 Case C-313/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Civile e Penale, Chiavari, by order of that court of 29 October 1994 in the case of Fratelli Graffione SnC v. Ditta Fransa 7
94/C 380/13 Case C-315/94 : Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld by order of that court of 3 November 1994 in the case of Peter de Vos v. Stadt Bielefeld 7
94/C 380/14 Case C-318/94 : Action brought on 6 December 1994 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany 8
94/C 380/15 Removal from the register of Case C-164/91 8
94/C 380/16 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-238/91 , C-239/91 and C-240/91 .... 9
94/C 380/17 Removal from the register of Case C-288/91 9
94/C 380/18 Removal from the register of Case C-323/91 • 9
94/C 380/19 Removal from the register of Case C-261/93 9
94/C 380/20 Removal from the register of Case C-60/94 9
94/C 380/21 Removal from the register of Case C-67/94 9
94/C 380/22 Removal from the register of Case C-75/94 9
94/C 380/23 Removal from the register of Case C-77/94 9
94/C 380/24 Removal from the register of Case C- 124/94 10 Notice No Contents ( continued ) Page
94/C 380/25 Removal from the register of Case C- 13 0/94 10
94/C 380/26 Removal from the register of Case C- 13 1 /94 10
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
94/C 380/27 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 November 1994 in Case T-451/93 : San Marco Impex Italiana SA v. Commission of the European Communities (European Development Fund — Public works contract — Construction of bridges and access roads in Somalia — Non-payment of certain invoices — Cancellation of the contract following the outbreak of civil war — Commission's liability) 10
94/C 380/28 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 1994 in Case T-498/93 : Yvonne Dornonville de la Cour v. Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Dependent child allowance for a child of full age suffering from a serious illness or disability — Withdrawal of a decision) 10
94/C 380/29 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 1994 in Case T-558/93 : Diethelm F. Düchs v. Commission of the European Communities (Member of the temporary staff of the Commission assigned to the JET joint enterprise — Termination of contract — Competent authority) 11
94/C 380/30 Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 November 1994 in Case T-568/93 : Helena Correia v. Commission of the European Communities (Probationer members of the temporary staff — Incompetence — Dismissal) 11
94/C 380/31 Order of the Court of First Instance of 20 October 1994 in Case T-99/94 : Asociacion Española de Empresas de la Carne ( ASOCARNE ) v. the Council of the European Union (Admissibility — Action brought by individuals against a directive — Act which is of individual concern to them) 11
94/C 380/32 Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 23 November 1994 in Case T-3 56/94 R : Sergio Vecchi v. Commission of the European Communities 12
94/C 380/33 Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 21 November 1994 in Case T-368/94 R, Pierre Blanchard v. Commission of the European Communities 12
94/C 380/34 Case T-306/94 : Action brought on 6 October 1994 by Elf Atochem SA against the Commission of the European Communities 12
94/C 380/35 Case T-3 10/94 : Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Gruber + Weber GmbH & Co . against the Commission of the European Communities 13
94/C 380/36 Case T-311/94 : Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV against the Commission of the European Communities 14
94/C 380/37 Case T-312/94 : Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Cepi-Cartonboard against the Commission of the European Communities 14
( Continued overleaf) Notice No Contents ( continued ) Page
94/C 380/38 Case T-313/94 : Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Shell International Chemical Company against the Commission of the European Communities 15
94/C 380/39 Case T-316/94 : Action brought on 8 October 1994 by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European Communities 16
94/C 380/40 Case T-317/94 : Action brought on 9 October 1994 by Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co . KG against the Commission of the European Communities 16
94/C 380/41 Case T-319/94 : Action brought on 10 October 1994 by Fiskeby Board AB against the Commission of the European Communities 17
94/C 380/42 Case T-322/94 : Action brought on 11 October 1994 by Union Carbide Corporation against the Commission of the European Communities 17
94/C 380/43 Case T-328/94 : Action brought on 13 October 1994 by Imperial Chemical Industries pic against the Commission of the European Communities 18
94/C 380/44 Case T-330/94 : Action brought on 13 October 1994 by Salt Union Limited against the Commission of the European Communities 19
94/C 380/45 Case T-334/94 : Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Sarriò SA against the Commission of the European Communities 20
94/C 380/46 Case T-336/94 : Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Efisol against the Commission of the European Communities 20
94/C 380/47 Case T-338/94 : Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Finnish Board Mills Association — Finnboard against the Commission of the European Communities 21
94/C 380/48 Case T-348/94 : Action brought on 18 October 1994 by Enso Española SA against the Commission of the European Communities 22
94/C 380/49 Case T-355/94 : Action brought on 21 October 1994 by Norsk Hydro A/S against the Commission of the European Communities 22
94/C 380/50 Case T-361/94 : Action brought on 31 October 1994 by Henry A. Weir against the Commission of the European Communities 23
94/C 380/51 Case T-362/94 : Action brought on 3 November 1994 by Jan Robert de Rijk against the Commission of the European'Communities 24
94/C 380/52 Case T-370/94 : Action brought on 17 November 1994 by Jacques Vigel against the Commission of the European Communities 24
94/C 380/53 Case T-376/94 : Action brought on 22 November 1994 by Georgette Otten against the Commission of the European Communities 25
94/C 380/54 Case T-378/94 : Action brought on 25 November 1994 by Josephus Knijff against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities 26
( Continued on inside back cover ) Notice No Contents ( continued ) Page
94/C 380/55 Case T-3 80/94 : Action brought on 29 November 1994 by International Association of Users of Yarns of Man-made Fibres and of Natural Silk ( AIUFFASS ) and Apparel , Knitting and Textiles Alliance ( AKT ) against the Commission of the European Communities 26
94/C 380/56 Removal from the register of Case T-50/93 and others 27
94/C 380/57 Removal from the register of Cases T-51/93 , T-196/93 and T-214/93 27
94/C 380/58 Removal from the register of Case T-52/93 28
94/C 380/59 Removal from the register of Case T-56/93 28
94/C 380/60 Removal from the register of Cases T-66/93 , T-69/93 and T-l 15/93 28
94/C 380/61 Removal from the register of Case T-89/93 28
94/C 380/62 Removal from the register of Case T-92/93 and others 28
94/C 380/63 Removal from the register of Case T-102/93 29
94/C 380/64 Removal from the register of Case T-104/93 and others 29
94/C 380/65 Removal from the register of Case T-152/93 29
94/C 380/66 Removal from the register of Case T-l 70/93 29
94/C 380/67 Removal from the register of Case T-l 74/93 29
94/C 380/68 Removal from the register of Case T-l 87/93 and T-l 88/93 30
94/C 380/69 Removal from the register of Case T-l 95/93 30
94/C 380/70 Removal from the register of Case T-2 13/93 30
94/C 380/71 Removal from the register of Case T-223/93 30
94/C 380/72 Removal from the register of Case T-241/93 30
94/C 380/73 Removal from the register of Case T-243/93 30
94/C 380/74 Removal from the register of Case T-245/93 30
94/C 380/75 Removal from the register of Case T-248/93 and others 30
94/C 380/76 Removal from the register of Case T-274/93 31
94/C 380/77 Removal from the register of Case T-275/93 31
94/C 380/78 Removal from the register of Case T-285/93 and others 31
94/C 380/79 Removal from the register of Case T-427/93 31
94/C 380/80 Removal from the register of Case T-428/93 32
94/C 380/81 Removal from the register of Case T-82/94 32 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/ 1
I
(Information)
COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT OF JUSTICE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT 1978 on the accession of the Kingdom of Denmark , of 6 December 1994 Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, means that, where a Contracting in Case C-406/92 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from State is also a Contracting Party to another convention the Court of Appeal ): The owners of the cargo lately laden on a specific matter containing rules on jurisdiction, that on board the ship Tatry v. The owners of the ship Maciej specialized convention precludes the application of the Rataj ( J ) provisions of the Brussels Convention only in cases (Brussels Convention — Lis pendens — Related actions — governed by the specialized convention and not in those Relationship with the International Convention relating to to which it does not apply; the arrest of seagoing ships) 94/C 380/01 ) 2 . on a proper construction of Article 21 of the Convention, where two actions involve the same cause of action and some but not all of the parties to the (Language of the case: English) second action are the same as the parties to the action commenced earlier in another Contracting State, the second court seised is required to decline jurisdiction only to the extent to which the parties to the proceedings In Case C-406/92 : reference to the Court under the Protocol before it are also parties to the action previously of 3 June 1971 on the interpretation by the Court of Justice commenced; it does not prevent the proceedings from of the Convention of 27 September 1 96 8 on j urisdiction and continuing between the other parties; the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters by the Court of Appeal for a preliminary ruling in 3 . on a proper construction of Article 21 of the the proceedings pending before that court between The Convention, an action seeking to have the defendant owners of the cargo lately laden on board the ship Tatry and held liable for causing loss and ordered to pay damages The owners of the ship Maciej Rataj — on the interpretation has the same cause of action and the same object as of Articles 21 , 22 and 57 of the Brussels Convention of earlier proceedings brought by that defendant seeking a 27 September 1968 ( 2 ), cited above , as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession of the declaration that he is not liable for that loss; Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ( 3 ) — the Court, 4 . a subsequent action does not cease to have the same composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias , President, R. Joliet, cause of action and the same object and to be between F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of the same parties as a previous action where the latter, Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ) brought by the owner of a ship before a court of a and J. L. Murray, Judges ; G. Tesauro , Advocate-General ; L. Contracting State, is an action in personam for a Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment declaration that that owner is not liable for alleged on 6 December 1994, the operative part of which is as damage to cargo transported by his ship, whereas the follows : subsequent action has been brought by the owner of the cargo before a court of another Contracting State by way ofan action in rem concerning an arrested ship, and 1 . on a proper construction, Article 57 of the Brussels has subsequently continued both in rem and in Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction and personam, or solely in personam, according to the the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial distinctions drawn by the national law of that other matters, as amended by the Convention of 9 October contracting State; No C 380/2 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
5 . on a proper construction of Article 22 of the law which merely limits the period prior to the bringing of Convention, it is sufficient, in order to establish the the claim in respect of which arrears of benefit are payable, necessary relationship beween, on the one hand, an even where that directive has not been properly transposed action brought in a Contracting State by one group of within the prescribed period in the Member State cargo owners against a shipowner seeking damages for concerned. harm caused to part of the cargo carried in bulk under separate but identical contracts, and, on the other, an (!) OJ No C 29 , 2 . 2 . 1993 . action in damages brought in another Contracting State ( 2 ) OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p . 24 . against the same shipowner by the owners of another part ofthe cargo shipped under the same conditions and under contracts which are separate from but identical to those between the first group and the shipowner, that separate trial and judgment would involve the risk of conflicting decisions, without necessarily involving the risk of giving rise to mutually exclusive legal JUDGMENT OF THE COURT consequences . of 6 December 1994 in Case C-277/93 : Commission of the European (!) OJ No C 24 , 28 . 1 . 1993 . ( 2 ) OJ No L 299 , 31 . 12 . 1972 . Communities v. Kingdom of Spain ( a ) ( 3 ) OJ No L 304 , 30 . 10 . 1978 , p. 1 and — amended text — (Right of establishment — Freedom to provide services — p. 77 . Doctors — Medical specialties — Training periods — Remuneration) ( 94/C 380/03
(Language of the case: Spanish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be JUDGMENT OF THE COURT published in the European Court Reports) of 6 December 1994 in Case C-410/92 ( reference for a preliminary ruling made In Case C-277/93 : Commission of the European by the Court of Appeal ): Elsie Rita Johnson v. Chief Communities ( Agents : Jose Luis Iglesias Buhigues and Adjudication Officer ( 1 ) Antonio Caeiro ) v. Kingdom of Spain ( Agents : Alberto Jose Navarro Gonzalez and Antonio Hierro Hernandez-Mora , (Equal treatment for men and women in matters of social replaced by Gloria Calvo Diaz ) — application for a securiy — National procedural time limits) declaration that, by not providing remuneration for the ( 94/C 380/02 periods of training necessary to obtain in Spain formal qualifications in the medical specialties listed in the third section of the Annex to Royal Decree No 127/1984 of (Language of the case: English) 11 January 1984 concerning specialized medical training and the award of qualifications in specialized medicine , the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under In Case C-410/92 : reference to the Court under Article 177 Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning of the EEC Treaty by the Court of Appeal for a preliminary the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between evidence of formal qualifications in medicine, including Elsie Rita Johnson and Chief Adjudication Officer — on the measures to facilitate the effective exercise of the right of interpretation of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of establishment and freedom to provide services ( 2 ) and 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of Council Directive 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation matters of social security ( 2 ) — the Court, composed of or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors ( 3 ) G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias ( Rapporteur ), President, R. Joliet, the Court, composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A. Schockweiler and P. J. G. Kapteyn ( Presidents of R. Joliet, F. A. Schockweiler ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F. Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris , J. C. Moitinho Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , J. L. Murray and de Almeida , J. L. Murray and D. A. O. Edward, Judges ; C. D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro , Gulmann , Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator , Advocate-General ; H. A. Riihl , Principal Administrator, for for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 6 December 1994 , the the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 December 1994, in operative part of which is as follows : which it :
Community law does not preclude the application, to a 1 . declared that, by not providing remuneration for the claim based on the direct effect of Council Directive periods oftraining necessary to obtain in Spain a formal 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive qualification in stomatology ('Estomatologia '), the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations and women in matters ofsocial security, ofa rule ofnational under Council Directive 75/362/EEC of 16 June 1975 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/3
concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, ( a ) the difference between the face value of the certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications vouchers and the price charged by the supplier to in medicine, including measures to facilitiate the the original purchaser of the voucher; or effective exercise of the right of establishment > and freedom to provide services, and Council Directive ( b ) the entire face value of the voucher ; or 75/363/EEC of 16 June 1975 concerning the ( c ) neither . coordination ofprovisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of activities of doctors, both as amended by Council Directive 3 . If Article 11A ( 3 ) ( b ) does not apply in the above circumstances, is Article 11A ( 1 ) ( a ) to be interpreted so 82/76/EEC of 26 January 1982; that the part of the consideration represented by the voucher is : 2 . dismissed the remainder of the application; ( a ) the face value of the voucher; or 3 . ordered the parties to bear their own costs . ( b ) the sum actually obtained by the supplier of the goods from the sale of the voucher ? f 1 ) OJ No C 172, 23 . 6 . 1993 . ( 2 ) OJ No L 167, 30 . 6 . 1975 , p . 1 . (!) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 . ( 3 ) OJ No L 167, 30 . 6 . 1975 , p . 14 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Queen's Bench Division, Divisional Court, by order of that court of 25 July Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Value Added Tax 1994, in the case of The Queen against the Secretary Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by order of that of State for Trade and Industry, ex-parte : British tribunal of 26 September 1994 , in the case of Argos Telecommunications pic, Interested Parties : Mercury Distributors Limited against the Commissioners of Customs Communications Limited and Kingston Communications and Excise ( Hull ) pic ( Case C-288/94 ) ( Case C-302/94 ) ( 94/C 380/04 ) ( 94/C 380/05
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the Value Added Tax European Communities by an order of the Queen's Bench Tribunals , London Tribunal Centre , of 26 September 1994, Division, Divisional Court, of 25 July 1994 , which was which was received at the Court Registry on 25 October received at the Court Registry on 14 November 1994 , for a 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Argos preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen against the Distributors Limited against the Commissioners of Customs Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, ex-parte : British and Excise , on the following questions : Telecommunications pic, Interested Parties : Mercury Communications Limited and Kingston Communications 1 . Is Article 11A ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth Council Directive of ( Hull ) pic, on the following questions : 17 May 1977, on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common 1 . ( a ) Are Council Directive 90/387/EEC ( l ) and system of value added tax : uniform basis of 92/44/EEC ( 2 ) to be construed as entitling or assessment (*) to be interpreted so that the expression requiring Member States to perform the obligations 'price discounts and rebates' is capable of applying in imposed upon them by Articles 3 to 10 of Directive circumstances where the face value of a voucher issued 92/44/EEC by imposing requirements only on by the supplier of goods covers or is available to cover public or private bodies ('undertakings') within the the entirety of the supplier's normal retail selling meaning of Article 2 ( 1 ) of Council Directive price ? 92/44/EEC , i.e. those to which a Member State has granted 'special or exclusive rights' in respect of the 2 . In circumstances where a supplier of goods has sold to a provision of leased lines ? purchaser at a discount a voucher which is subsequently presented in whole or ( more commonly ) part payment ( b ) If the answer to Question 1(a ) is in the negative , in of goods by a customer who was not the purchaser of the what circumstances is a Member State entitled or voucher and does not normally know what sum was required to perform the said obligations by paid for the voucher, is Article 11A ( 3 ) ( b ) of the Sixth imposing requirements upon an undertaking which Council Directive to be interpreted so that the does not have such 'special or exclusive rights'? expression 'price discounts and rebates allowed to the customer and accounted for at the time of supply' 2 . ( a ) For the purposes of Directive 92/44/EEC , is a covers : Member State entitled to treat an undertaking as No C 380/4 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
having 'special or exclusive rights' within the legal certainty, require any de minimis meaning of Article 2 of Directive 90/387/EEC threshold, if permissible, to be specified in the where : national measures implementing the Directive ? ( i ) the running of a telecommunication system within the Member State concerned without a 4 . Subject to the answers to Questions 1 and/or 2 above, is licence granted by the competent authorities Directive 92/44/EEC and in particular Article 7 (1 ) to be of that State is a criminal offence ; interpreted as entitling or requiring a Member State to ( ii ) the published policy of the Member State impose upon two of the undertakings authorized by the concerned is that all applications for licences Member State to provide the service in question, but relevant to the provision of the service in upon no other such undertaking, the obligation to question are considered by the Member State , provide a minimum set of leased lines in accordance with within the framework of the applicable Annex II ? national law, on their merits and on the basis of a general presumption on the part of the 5 . If the answer to any part of Questions 3 or 4 is in the licensing authority that applications will be affirmative , is Directive 92/44/EEC pro tanto invalid as granted unless there are specific reasons to the in breach of, inter alia, the principle of contrary, and without applying any limit to non-discrimination ? the number of such licences granted; 6 . Is Directive 92/44/EEC, and in particular Article 7 ( 1 ) ( iii ) several undertakings ( including the Applicant together with Annex II, invalid as infringing the and the Interveners herein ) are actually principle of proportionality to the extent that it requires providing leased lines within the terms of such licences ? the provision within all Member States of 2 048 kbit/s digital structured leased lines in accordance with technical characteristics specified in the said Annex ? ( b ) If the factors set out in Question ( a ) above are not determinative of the answer to that question, what other criteria are relevant ? 7 . ( a ) Is a Member State liable as a matter of Community law to compensate an undertaking in damages for loss which it has suffered as a consequence of: 3 . Subject to the answers to Questions 1 and/or 2 : ( i ) the wrongful implementation in relation to ( a ) is Directive 92/44/EEC to be interpreted as entitling that undertaking of the obligations referred to a Member State to refrain from imposing the in Articles 3 to 10 of Directive 92/44/EEC or obligations envisaged in Articles 3 to 10 of that any of those obligations; Directive or any of them upon an undertaking : ( ii ) the implementation of the Directive in ( i ) which is authorized by the Member State to question in such a way as to infringe the provide leased lines but is not currently principle of equal treatment ? offering that service; ( iii ) the implementation of the obligations in ( ii ) which is offering the service in question ? question in circumstances where the relevant provisions of the Directive are invalid as ( b ) If the answer to Question 3 ( a ) ( i ) and/or ( ii ) above infringing the principle of equal treatment is in the affirmative, in which circumstances and by and/or the principle of proportionality ? reference to which criteria is Directive 92/44/EEC ( b ) If the answers to Questions 7 ( a ) ( i ), ( ii ) and ( iii ), or to be interpreted as permitting a Member State to any of them, is in the affirmative , under what refrain from imposing the said obligations, or any conditions des such liability arise ? of them , upon such an undertaking ?
( c ) In particular, (!) OJ No L 192 , 24 . 7 . 1990, p . 1 . ( 2 ) OJ No L 165 , 19 . 6 . 1992 , p . 27 . ( i ) is the Directive to be interpreted as permitting a Member State so to refrain on the ground that the actual provision of leased lines by an undertaking is , in the estimation of that Member State, de minimis ? Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura ( ii ) If so, how is the de minimis exception to be Circondariale di Terni by order of that court of 27 October defined ? In particular, may a Member State 1994 in the criminal proceedings before it against Euro confine its assessment to the market position Tombesi and Adino Tombesi at the date of implementation of the Directive, ( Case C-304/94 ) or must it have regard also to the potential ( 94/C 380/06 ) development of the market ? ( iii ) Does the principle of non-discrimination, Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the taken in conjunction with the principle of European Communities by an order of the Pretura 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/5
Circondariale ( District Magistrate's Court), Terni, of Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour 27 October 1994 , which was received at the Court Registry Administrate d'Appel de Lyon ( Fourth Chamber ) by on 17 November 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the judgment of that court of 26 October 1994 in the case of criminal proceedings pending before it against Euro Regie Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari v. Ministre du Tombesi and Adino Tombesi on the following questions : Budget ( Case C-306/94 ) — whether the definitions of 'waste' and 'waste destined ( 94/C 380/07 ) for recovery' laid down in Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991 H and Council Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Directive 91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 ( 2 ) and European Communities by a judgment of the Cour Regulation ( EEC ) No 259/93 of 1 February 1993 ( 3 ) Administrative d'Appel de Lyon ( Administrative Court of should at present continue to be understood and Appeal , Lyon ) ( Fourth Chamber ) of 26 October 1994 , interpreted in the light of the previous case-law of the which was received at the Court Registry on 21 November Court and whether at the same time those two 1994, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Regie definitions may in every case be regarded as including all Dauphinoise — Cabinet A. Forest Sari v. Ministre du Budget materials , however residual, derived from production or on the following question : consumption cycles in a manufacturing or combustion process and, if so, whether those materials as well are to — first, whether or not, having regard to the wording of the be regarded from the point of view of Community rules provisions of Article 19 of the Sixth Directive , on a as being subject to the system established by the proper construction of those provisions, where an abovementioned directives, undertaking subject to value added tax which also receives interest on investments of excess funds exercises — whether a deactivation process intended merely to its right to deduct, those investment transactions must, render waste harmless may be included among the having regard to their nature in relation to the scope of operations intended to make a residue reusable and value added tax, in principle affect the exercise of that therefore as such falling outside the system laid down by right, the Community legislation on waste , — secondly, if there is an effect on the right to deduct, whether that investment interest is to be included within — whether landfill tipping in hollows or embankments the denominator of the ratio, or excluded from it may be regarded as the recovery of waste capable of because of its nature , or because , having regard to its being classified as residues not governed by EEC amount or the proportion which it represents of total legislation on waste , receipts or the fact that the relevant transactions are a direct and permanent extension of the taxable activity, it is an 'incidental financial transaction' referred to in — whether waste incineration may be included among the Article 19 ( 2 ) of the Sixth Directive, or, finally, on any recovery of materials simply because marketable other grounds . residues are obtained therefrom and may consequently fall outside the system laid down by the Community legislation on waste and in particular outside the incineration rules ,
— whether waste may be classified as a reusable residue Action brought on 21 November 1994 by the Commission without its characteristics or purpose being defined to of the European Communities against the Italian that end and may thus fall outside the scope of the EEC Republic legislation on waste, ( Case C-307/94 ) ( 94/C 380/08 ) — whether waste which is merely ground without its characteristics being altered in any way may become a residue falling outside the EEC legislation on waste An action against the Italian Republic was brought before where the future reutilization of such ground residue has the Court of Justice of the European Communities on not been established . 21 November 1994 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Enrico Traversa and Enrico Vesco, of its Legal Service , acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis, 0 ) OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 32 . Wagner Centre , Kirchberg . ( 2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 20 . ( 3 ) OJ No L 30, 6 . 2 . 1993 , p . 1 . The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that, by postponing from 1 October 1987 to 1 November 1990 the time limit laid down in Article 5 of No C 380/6 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Council Directive 85/432/EEC of 16 September 1985 Nissan France SA and Others v. Jean Luc Dupasquier, concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by ' Garage Sport Auto' and Others on the following law, regulation or administrative action in respect of questions : certain activities in the field of pharmacy and by retaining until the latter date curricula for training in 1 . May a parallel importer carry on the businesses of pharmacy which are incompatible with that directive , intermediary and of reseller of imported vehicles at the the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations same time ? under Directive 85/432/EEC and particularly under Articles 1 , 2 and 5 thereof; 2 . What are the criteria for differentiating between new and second-hand vehicles for the purposes of 2 . order the Italian Republic to pay the costs . Community law ?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: 3 . After how many kilometres and how much time in circulation is a vehicle to be regarded as second-hand ? Or is the answer in each case a matter for the national Although the time limit for compliance laid down by courts ? Directive 85/432/EEC ( J ) is 1 October 1987, Article 2 of the Italian decree of 31 October 1988 amending the university teaching regulations relating to degree courses in pharmacy and in pharmaceutical chemistry and technology ( GURI, General Series No 109 of 12 May 1989 ) allows science faculties to amend teaching regulations and in particular to amend training in core subjects and in optional studies relating to each type of degree course in pharmacy up to Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de 1 November 1990 . Furthermore , Article 3 of that decree Commerce de Saintes by a judgment of that court of authorizes students who are already enrolled to follow the 3 November 1994 in the case of Garage Ardon SA, Bernard new curricula where they are already in place but does not Martin, Relais de Saintonge Sari and Bernard Menet Sari v. compel them to do so . That situation not only raises issues of Garage Trabisco SA principle but also practical problems of substance . The ( Case C-3 10/94 ) diploma awarded to students who, after 1 October 1987, ( 94/C 380/10 ) have followed the earlier training programme cannot be recognized for the purposes of Directive 85/432/EEC , because Article 6 of Council Directive 85/433/EEC ( 2 ), Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the which governs acquired rights , cannot be applied to those European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de students . The situation created by the Italian legislature also Commerce ( Commercial Court), Saintes , of 3 November makes it necessary for the other Member States to verify on a 1994 , which was lodged at the Court Registry on case by case basis whether access to the Italian professional 23 November 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of body of pharmacists was effected by the competent national Garage Ardon SA, Bernard Martin, Relais de Saintonge Sari authorities in a manner consistent with Article 2 of Directive and Bernard Menet Sari on the following questions : 85/432/EEC . — Is an independent trader prohibied from selling new cars (!) OJ No L 253 , 24 . 9 . 1985 , p . 34 . and, in any event, what is the definition of a new and of a ( 2 ) OJ No L 253 , 24 . 9 . 1985 , p . 37 . second-hand car ?
— Is an independent trader prohibited from carrying on at the same time the business of offering services as a free intermediary and the business of a dealer engaged , in particular, in parallel imports ?
— May a concessionaire engage in parallel importations of Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal de vehicles of the make for which the concession was Commerce de Lyon by a judgment of that court of granted or other makes and , if so, by purchase and sale 14 November 1994 in the case of Nissan France SA and and/or pursuant to an authorization from the final Others v. Jean Luc Dupasquier, 'Garage Sport Auto' and user ? Others ( Case C-309/94 ) — Are imports of motor vehicles coming from other ( 94/C 380/09 ) Member States prohibited otherwise than in the context of an authorization given to an intermediary offering his services and , consequently, are they prohibited if Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the effected by means of a purchase and resale European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de operation ? Commerce ( Commercial Court), Lyon, of 14 November 1994 , which was lodged at the Court Registry on 23 November 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/7
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Civile e Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen of 19 August Penale, Chiavari, by order of that court of 29 October 1994 1994 in the case of Iris Zachow v. Land in the case of Fratelli Graffione SnC v. Ditta Fransa Nordrhein-Westfalen Case C-3 13/94 ) ( Case C-3 12/94 ) ( 94/C 380/12 ) ( 94/C 380/11 ) Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunal Civile e European Communities by a judgment of the 13th Senate of Penale ( Civil and Criminal District Court ), Chiavari , of the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen ( Regional 29 October 1994 , which was received at the Court Registry Social Court, Nordrhein-Westfalen ) of 19 August 1994 , on 28 November 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the case which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November of Fratelli Graffione SnC v. Ditta Fransa , on the following 1994 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Iris Zachow questions : against Land Nordrhein-Westfalen on the following questions : 1 . Must Articles 30 and 36 be interpreted as precluding restrictive application of national legislation of a Member State which prohibits the movement within its 1 . Is child-care benefit within the meaning of paragraph 1 territory of a product from another Member State in et seq . of the Law on the grant of child-care benefit and which that product has been lawfully manufactured and child-care leave, in the version contained in the public lawfully bears a trademark ? notification of 6 December 1985 ( Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2154 ), as amended by paragraph 6 of the Law amending provisions concerning statutory pensions 2 . Must Article 12 ( 2 ) ( b ) of Directive 89/104/EEC ( ! ) be insurance and other provisions of social law — the 7th interpreted as entailing harmonization of the national amending Law on pensions insurance of 19 December provisions on revocation of trademark rights, on the 1986 ( Bundesgesetzblatt I , p. 2586 ), and of the Law of grounds therein indicated , in relation to products 17 December 1990 ( Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2823 ) a distributed at Community level ? family benefit within the meaning of Article 4 ( 1 ) ( h ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 (*)? 3 . In circumstances such as those considered in the grounds of this judgment, must the provision referred to in 2 . If so : Question 2 above be interpreted , having regard inter alia to the principle of proportionality, as precluding restrictive application of national legislation of a ( a ) May the spouse of a person employed in the Federal Member State intended to prevent the movement in that Republic of Germany, whose family lives in another Member State of a product lawfully manufactured and Member State , claim the payment of child-care bearing a trademark in, and coming from , another benefit on the basis of Article 73 of Regulation Member State ? ( EEC ) No 1408/71 ?
(!) OJ No L 40, 11 . 2 . 1989, p . 1 . 3 . If not :
( a ) Is the child-care benefit a social advantage within the meaning of Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 ( 2 )?
( b ) If so , is Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht No 1612/68 applicable if the worker residing in Bielefeld by order of that court of 3 November 1994 in the another Member State is a national of the State case of Peter de Vos v. Stadt Bielefeld where he is employed ? ( Case C-315/94 ) ( 94/C 380/13 ) ( c ) If so, does Article 7 ( 2 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 confer upon the worker's spouse entitlement to payment of child-care benefit if the Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the family resides in a Member State other than the European Communities by an order of the Sixth Chamber of State of employment ? the Arbeitsgericht Bielefeld ( Bielefeld Labour Court ) of 3 November 1994, which was received at the Court Registry on 29 November 1994, for a preliminary ruling in the case ( 1 ) OJ No L 149, 5 . 7 . 1971 , p . 2 . of Peter de Vos v. Stadt Bielefeld on the following ( 2 ) OJ No L 257, 19 . 10 . 1968 , p . 2 . question :
Must Article 7 ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement No C 380/8 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
for workers within the Community ( ) be interpreted as unforeseeable event for the contracting authority; on meaning that a worker who is a national of one Member the contrary, the authority had to reckon with the State and is employed in the territory of another Member procedure not running altogether as planned . State is entitled to continued payment of contributions ( employer's and employee's contributions ) to the Exceptional circumstances or unforeseeable events supplementary old-age and survivors ' pension scheme for within the meaning of the said provisions are rather, workers in the public service, at the same level as they would in the Commission's opinion, external events such as have been payable if the employment relationship were not force majeure or disasters . suspended because of the worker's call-up for military service, if nationals of that State employed in the public service are so entitled by law when performing military — 'Reasons of extreme urgency' cannot be inferred service ? from the circumstance that the contracting authority wishes to meet a deadline in order to enable a shipyard to fulfil a contractual delivery obligation in ( ! ) Official Journal, English Special Edition 1968 II, p. 475 . time . The consequences of delay could not in the present case be classified as serious or significant .
Moreover, the decision to dredge the lower Ems had originally been embarked upon in 1989 completely independently of any contractual obligation on the Action brought on 6 December 1994 by the Commission of part of the shipyard . the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany — The time limits for other procedures causing less ( Case C-318/94 ) interference with the rights of the participants could ( 94/C 380/14 ) have been complied with , since in the present case the contracting authority had available at least the period from 21 June 1991 ( date of the invitation to An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was undertakings to submit tenders ) to 15 August 1991 brought before the Court of Justice of the European ( date when the contract was awarded ), 55 calendar Communities on 6 December 1994 by the Commission of days . That period was sufficient for an award by the the European Communities , represented by Hendrik van accelerated procedure under Article 15 of the Lier and Angela Bardenhewer, with an address for service in directive . Luxembourg at the office of Georgios Kremlis , Wagner Centre , Kirchberg . — ( In the alternative ) The 'unforeseeable events' invoked to justify extreme urgency is attributable to the contracting The applicant claims that the Court should : authorities ( second sentence of Article 5 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the directive ). The Bezirksregierung Weser-Ems as an 1 . declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed official body of the Land of Lower Saxony is admittedly to fulfil its obligations under Council Directive not directly dependent on the 'Wasser- und 71/305/EEC ( x ) of 26 July 1971 concerning the Schiffahrtsamt Emden', which is a federal body . It is, coordination of procedures for the award of public however, for its part undoubtedly a contracting works contracts , as amended by Council Directive authority within the meaning of Article 1 ( b ) of the 89/440/EECof 18 July 1989 ( 2 ), in that the Wasser- und public works contracts directive . The German Federal Schiffahrtsamt ( Waterways and Shipping Office ) Government is thus relying on circumstances which Emden awarded a public works contract concerning the were caused by a contracting authority, whose consent is dredging of the lower Ems from Papenburg to Oldersum moreover an essential component of the approval by a negotiated procedure without prior publication of a procedure and in that respect also a condition of the tender notice in the Official Journal of the European public tender procedure for the scheme . Communities -,
2 . order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the (!) OJ No L 185 , 16 . 8 . 1971 , p . 5 . costs . ( 2 ) OJ No L 210, 21 . 7 . 1989 , p . 1 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— The conditions in the first sentence of Article 5 ( 3 ) ( c ) of the directive , which should have been fulfilled cumulatively, were in fact not fulfilled : Removal from the register of Case C- 164/91 ( ) — The fact that in the course of the planning procedure ( 94/C 380/15 ) the Bezirksregierung ( District Administration ) Weser-Ems initially raised no objections at the consultation meeting but then in May 1991 refused By order of 24 October 1994 the President of the Court of the necessary consent does not represent an Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/9 from the register of Case C-164/91 : ( reference for a from the register of Case C-261/93 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Dreux ): preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Criminal proceedings against Jean Manuel Sauges . Moulins ): Criminal proceedings against Didier Lancelot .
(!) OJ No C 201 , 31 . 7 . 1991 . (!) OJ No C 149 , 29 . 5 . 1993 .
Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-238/91 , Removal from the register of Case C-60/94 ( J ) C-239/91 and C-240/91 (M ( 94/C 380/20 ) ( 94/C 380/16 By order of 14 November 1994 the President of the Court of By order of 1 December 1994 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-60/94 : Commission of the from the register of Joined Cases C-238/91 , C-239/91 and European Communities v. Italian Republic . C-240/91 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ): Criminal proceedings against (!) OJ No C 90, 26 . 3 . 1994 . Bernard Henryon, Claude Valentin and Gerard Bully .
0 ) OJ No C 277, 24 . 10 . 1991 .
Removal from the register of Case C-67/94 (*) ( 94/C 380/21 )
Removal from the register of Case C-288/91 ( ) By order of 14 November 1994 the President of the Court of ( 94/C 380/17 ) Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-67/94 : Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland . By order of 6 December 1994 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-288/91 ( reference for a (!) OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 . preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Toulouse ): Criminal proceedings against Lucien Gleyzes .
(!) OJ No C 328 , 17 . 12 . 1991 . Removal from the register of Case C-75/94 i 1 ) ( 94/C 380/22
By order of 9 November 1994 the President of the Court of Removal from the register of Case C-323/91 ( ) Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal ( 94/C 380/18 ) from the register of Case C-75/94 : Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic .
By order of 6 December 1994 the President of the Court of H OJ No C 120 , 30 . 4 . 1994 . Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-323/91 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Police de Nancy ): Criminal proceedings against Alain Marchandeau .
(!) OJ No C 19 , 25 . 1 . 1992 . Removal from the register of Case C-77/94 (*) ( 94/C 380/23 )
By order of 7 December 1994 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-77/94 : Commission of the Removal from the register of Case C-261/93 ( ) European Communities v. French Republic . ( 94/C 380/19 ) (!) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 . By order of 7 November 1994 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal No C 380/10 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Removal from the register of Case C-124/94 ( ) from the register of Case C-130/94 : Commission of the ( 94/C 380/24 European Communities v. Ireland .
By order of 28 October 1994 the President of the Court of f 1 ) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 . Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case C-124/94 : Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
0 ) OJ No C 174, 25 . 6 . 1994 . Removal from the register of Case C-131/94 ( ! ) ( 94/C 380/26 )
By order of 14 November 1994 the President of the Court of Removal from the register of Case C-130/94 ( ) Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal ( 94/C 380/25 ) from the register of Case C-131/94 : Commission of the European Communities v. Ireland . By order of 14 November 1994 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal (!) OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE 2 . orders the applicant to pay the costs. of 16 November 1994 in Case T-451/93 : San Marco Impex Italiana SA v. Commission of the European Communities ( ] ) H OJ No C 214, 20 . 8 . 1992 . (European Development Fund — Public works contract — Construction of bridges and access roads in Somalia — Non-payment of certain invoices — Cancellation of the contract following the outbreak of civil war — Commission 's liability) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ( 94/C 380/27 ) of 30 November 1994 in Case T-498/93 : Yvonne Dornonville de la Cour v. Commission of the European Communities i 1 ) (Officials — Dependent child allowance for a child offull (Language of the case: English) age suffering from a serious illness or disability — Withdrawal of a decision) ( 94/C 380/28 )
In Case T-451/93 : San Marco Impex Italiana SA, whose (Language of the case: Danish) registered office is at Modena , Italy, represented by Lucette Defalque, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in In Case T-498/93 : Yvonne Dornonville de la Cour, residing Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue in Skodsborg ( Denmark), represented by Jesper Rothe , of Guillaume v. Commission of the European Communities the Copenhagen Bar, with an address for service in ( Agents : Hans Peter Hartvig and Claire Bury ) — application Luxembourg at the chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue for compensation pursuant to Article 178 and the second Guillaume, v. Commission of the European Communities paragraph of Article 215 of the EEC Treaty for damage ( Agent : Hans Peter Hartvig ) — application for the suffered in connection with a public works contract annulment of the decision of the Commission terminating concluded between the applicant and the Government of the the payment to the applicant of dependent child allowance Somali Democratic Republic — the Court of First Instance, in respect of a child of full age suffering from a serious composed of A. Kalogeropoulos, President, D. P. M. illness, and for an order requiring the Commission to pay Barrington and K. Lenaerts , Judges , H. Jung, Registrar, has first, the said allowance and, second, damages — the Court given a judgment on 16 November 1994, in which it: of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of J. L. Cruz Villaga, President, and H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos , Judges ; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 November 1994, the operative part of which is as 1 . dismisses the application; follows : 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/11
1 . the Commission's decision withholding the payment to JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE the applicant of dependent child allowance for the of 30 November 1994 month of August 1 992 is annuled; in Case T-568/93 : Helena Correia v. Commission of the European Communities (*) 2 . the Commission is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of Dkr 5 610,55 together with default interest at (Probationer members of the temporary staff — Incompetence — Dismissal) the rate of 8% per annum from 1 September 1992; ( 94/C 380/30 ) 3 . the remainder of the application is dismissed; (Language of the case: French) 4 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs . In Case T-568/93 : Helena Correia , a former member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communities , residing at Woluwe-Saint-Etienne ( Belgium ), f 1 ) OJ No C 282 , 20 . 10 . 1993 . represented by Jean-Noel Louis , of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener, v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Dimitrios Gouloussis ) — application for the annulment of the Commission's decision of 25 February 1993 dismissing the applicant on the expiry of her probationary period — the Court of First Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts , JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE President, and R. Schintgen and R. García-Valdecases , of 30 November 1994 Judges; J. Palacio Gonzalez, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 November 1994 , the in Case T-558/93 : Diethelm F. Düchs v. Commission of the operative part of which is as follows : European Communities ( 1 ) (Member ofthe temporarystaffofthe Commission assigned 1 . the Commission 's decision of 25 February 1993 to the JET joint enterprise — Termination of contract — dismissing the applicant is annuled; Competent authority) ( 94/C 380/29 ) 2 . the Commission is ordered to pay the costs .
(Language of the case: French) f 1 ) OJ No C 1 , 4 . 1 . 1994 .
In Case T-558/93 : Diethelm F. Düchs, a former member of the temporary staff of the Commission of the European Communities , residing at Munich ( Germany ), represented by Jean-Noel Louis and Thierry Demaseure, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue Glesener v. Commission of of 20 October 1994 the European Communities ( Agent : Gianluigi Valsesia , in Case T-99/94 : Asociacion Española de Empresas de la assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, of the Brussels Bar ) — Carne ( ASOCARNE ) v. the Council of the European application for the annulment of the termination of the Union ( J ) applicant's contract of employment as a member of the temporary staff — the Court of First Instance ( First (Admissibility — Action brought by individuals against a Chamber ), composed of J. L. Cruz Vilaça , President, and H. directive — Act which is of individual concern to them) Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; J. Palacio ( 94/C 380/31 ) Gonzalez, Administrator , for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 30 November 1994, the operative part of which is as (Language of the case: Spanish) follows : In Case T-99/94 : Asociacion Española de Empresas de la 1 . the application is dismissed as inadmissible; Carne ( ASOCARNE), whose head office is in Madrid , represented by Paloma Llaneza Gonzalez , of the Madrid 2 . the parties are ordered to bear their own costs . Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, against the Council of the European Union ( Agents : Ramon Torrent and Ignacio Díez Parra ) — application for the annulment of (!) OJ No C 334, 9 . 12 . 1993 . Council Directive 93/118/EEC of 22 December 1993 amending Directive 85/73/EEC on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat and poultrymeat ( 2 ) — the Court of First Instance ( First Chamber), composed of No C 380/12 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
J. L. Cruz Vilaça, President of the Chamber, H. Kirschner Chambers of Evelyne Korn, 21 Rue de Nassau, against the and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : order on 20 October 1994, the operative part of which is as Gianluigi Valsesia ) — application to postpone or suspend follows : elections to the Brussels local section of the Staff Committee of the Commission — the President of the Court of First 1 . the action is dismissed as inadmissibile; Instance made an order on 21 November 1994 , the 2 . there is no need to give a decision on the applications to operative part of which is as follows : intervene made by Federació Catalana d'Industries de la Cam (Fecic), the Asociacion Profesional de Salas de 1 . the procedure for the elections to the Brussels local Despiece y Empresas Cárnicas (Aprosa-Anec) and the section of the Staff Committee of the Commission is Commission; suspended;
3 . the applicant shall bear its own costs, together with 2 . in accordance with Article 7 of the Electoral Rules, lists those incurred by the Council; already accepted by the Electoral Office cannot be 4 . the interveners shall bear their own costs . subject to withdrawal on the part of candidates; t 1 ) OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 . 3 . a new period ofsix working days shall be opened by the ( 2 ) OJ No L 340, 31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 15 . Electoral Office without delay to enable new lists of candidates to be submitted. Their names must not be liable to be confused with those of the lists already accepted by the Electoral Office or those of the trade unions or staff associations of European officials who ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT have submitted them; OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 23 November 1994 4 . the applicant may rely on the provisions ofparagraph 3 in Case T-356/94 R: Sergio Vecchi v. Commission of the under the same conditions as any other candidate; European Communities 5 . the Electoral Office shall, ifneed be, exercise in relation ( 94/C 380/32 ) to the new lists the powers conferred upon it by the (Language of the case: French) Electoral Rules and, in particular, by Article 7 thereof; In Case T-356/94 R : Sergio Vecchi, an official of the Commission of the European Communities, residing in 6 . the elections shall take place on a date to be fixed by the Overijse ( Belgium ), represented by Georges Vandersanden, Electoral Office, which shall be the closest possible to of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in the expiry date ofthe period referred to in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari , 1 Rue paragraph 3; Glesener, v. Commission of the European Communities ( Agent : Ana Maria Alves Vieira ) — application for 7 . as to the remainder, all the provisions of the Electoral suspension of the implementation of the decision appointing Rules shall continue to apply; Mr K. to the post of head of the Commission's delegation in Kazakhstan — the President of the Court of First Instance 8 . costs are reserved. made an order on 23 November 1994, the operative part of which is as follows : 1 . the application for interim measures is dismissed.
2 . the costs are reserved. Action brought on 6 October 1994 by Elf Atochem SA against the Commission of the European Communities ( Case T-306/94 ) ( 94/C 380/34 ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Language of the case: French) of 21 November 1994 in Case T-368/94 R, Pierre Blanchard v. Commission of the An action against the Commission of the European European Communities Communities was brought before the Court of First ( 94/C 380/33 ) Instance of the European Communities on 6 October 1994 by Elf Atochem SA, which has its registered office in Paris, (Language of the case: French) represented by Xavier de Roux, Charles-Henri Leger and Jacques-Philippe Gunther, of the Paris Bar, with an address In Case T-368/94 R : Pierre Blanchard , an official of the for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Jacques Commission of the European Communities , residing in Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe . Brussels, represented by Marc-Albert Lucas , of the Liege Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the The applicant claims that the Court should : 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/13
( i ) annul the Commission decision of 27 July 1994 ; Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Gruber + Weber GmbH & Co . against the Commission of the European ( ii ) in the alternative , reduce the fine to a level Communities corresponding exactly to what the Court considers to Case T-3 10/94 ) be the applicant's liability; ( 94/C 380/35 )
( iii ) order the Commission to pay all the costs of the proceedings . (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 7 October 1994 The applicant submits that, following the annulment by the by Gruber + Weber GmbH & Co ., whose registered office is Court of Justice, in its judgment of 15 June 1994 , of the in Gernsbach-Obertsrot ( Federal Republic of Germany ), Commission's decision of 21 December 1988 , the represented by Holger Wissel and Joachim Schütze , Commission notified the applicant on 4 August 1994 of a Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf, of Pünder, Volhard, Weber & new decision applying Article 85 which it had adopted on Axster, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the 27 July 1994 without having taken any of the steps relating Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe . to procedure , consultation or opinions laid down by Regulation No 17/62 of the Council . The applicant claims that the Commission acted improperly by failing to give the The applicant claims that the Court should : implicated undertakings an opportunity to submit the observations which they were entitled to make and by failing 1 . annul the Commission decision of 13 July 1994 to submit to the Advisory Committee a draft of a new ( IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard ) ( C(94 ) 1824 final ), as decision based on the text of a measure more than five years amended on 26 July 1994 ( C(94 ) 2135 final ), received old, which had been declared non-existent and subsequently by Gruber + Weber on 4 and 5 August 1994 respectively, annuled , a failure which thus prevented the Committee from on the grounds of breach of formal and substantive deciding on the merits and appropriateness of the new Community law; decision . From this the applicant concludes that the procedure followed by the Commission is vitiated by 2 . in the event that the contested decision is upheld in full manifest irregularity . or in part, reduce definitively the fine of ECU 1 000 000 imposed on Gruber + Weber; The applicant also submits that the decision of 27 July 1994 could not but be substantially different from that of 1988 , 3 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the given the fact that between 1988 and 1994 the legal position proceedings . of the undertakings had changed, just as the economic situation on which the Commission had based its assessment in 1988 had also changed . While it may be true Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: that the new decision is based , in abstracto, on the Commission's investigations and findings prior to 1988 , The applicant, a cartonboard-manufacturing company that does not alter the fact that there has been a total failure established under German law, contests the Commission to comply with the requirement under Regulation No 17 decision of 13 July 1994 which concluded that European that the parties should have an opportunity to put their case suppliers of cartonboard had infringed Article 85 of the EC in the investigation procedure . Treaty . The alleged infringement consists in the participation in an agreement and concerted practice from With regard to the substance of the contested decision, the mid- 1986 to at least April 1991 , as already described in the applicant submits that the decision must be annulled on the Official Journal of the European Communities notice of following grounds : ( a ) failure to comply with the relevant Case T-295/94 . rules of evidence and reversal of the burden of proof; ( b ) the decision was adopted exclusively on the basis of collective The applicant argues that it cannot be accused of having liability of the undertakings concerned , without individual participated , during the period 1988 to 1990 , in agreements infringements being imputed to undertakings, and on the within the meaning of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty . In basis of the use of admissions as evidence; ( c ) cumulative or particular, Gruber + Weber cannot be accused of having alternative application of the concepts of agreement and taken part in agreements with regard to prices, quantities , concerted practice , thereby preventing the parties , contrary quotas and capacities . to their rights to a fair hearing, from becoming aware of the precise nature of the infringement and of the consequential Nor can the applicant be accused of having exchanged evidence; ( d ) failure by the Commission to take account of commercial information with competitors with a view to the fact that the applicant undertaking was not responsible safeguarding a comprehensive and regular monopoly . for the alleged conduct of PCUK . Gruber + Weber's role was confined to participation in the Fides system, which Gruber + Weber, as a small medium-sized undertaking, assumed to be permissible with regard to the law on cartels . No C 380/14 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Neither during the administrative procedure nor in its Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: decision did the Commission mention, let along explain, whether and, if so , to what extent the Printa and Duplex KO The applicant, a producer of high quality white lined brands of folding boxboard were affected by the procedure , chipboard ( GD grade cartonboard only ) and other in addition to the Supra and Vona brands . The Commission non-cartonboard paper products, challenges the decision of failed completely to explain why it included those two the Commission of 13 July 1994 , imposing fines for an brands within the 'monopolized' sector . This failure to infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty . This comply with its duty to provide reasons constitutes a infringement consists of a participation from about fundamental procedural error, since the question of product mid-1986 until at least April 1991 in an agreement and turnover forming the basis for the fine imposed plays a concerted practice by which the producers supplying crucial role . That failure also amounts to a fundamental cartonboard in the Community engaged in the acts referred interference with Gruber + Weber's right to a fair to in the Official Journal of the European Communities hearing . notice in Case T-295/94 .
To sum up , the fine imposed on Gruber + Weber is The applicant submits that the Commission has failed to manifestly excessive when considered in the light of the identify, both in its Statement of Objections and in its criteria chosen by the Commission as its basis . Even if it were Decision, the objections and evidence which could support not possible on the basis of each individual point mentioned its broad finding against it. This meant that the applicant to advocate a reduction in favour of Gruber + Weber, the had no opportunity to identify the Commission's case fine ought at least to be reduced considerably from a general correctly and to defend itself effectively . point of view . The applicant also submits that the Commission is unable to In conclusion, therefore, Gruber + Weber takes the view, in substantiate by documentary evidence the applicant's consideration of its entirely subsidiary role and its merely participation in the alleged cartel . It did not in fact attend the partial involvement in the complaint brought against the meetings of the President Working Group , and attended European cartonboard manufacturers , that, at most, the only two meetings of the Joint Marketing Committee in imposition of a small fine would be appropriate . In its view, April 1989 and November 1990 . The Commission cannot the amount of DM 600 000 which it paid at the outset therefore substantiate the applicant's participation in the represents the maximum level of what would be an alleged cartel prior to its attendance at the JMC meeting in appropriate fine . April 1989 . Moreover, the Commission has failed to establish that the President Conference of Economic Committee was involved in any 'illegal' activities .
The applicant considers that, in any event, its behaviour was significantly different from that of the other producers . It announced in 1987 a price increase that differed from that Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Kartonfabriek de of the major producers, and it did not raise its prices at the Eendracht NV against the Commission of the European time of the alleged price initiative in 1988 . Unlike the Communities majority of the producers , the applicant suffered decreasing ( Case T-3 11/94 ) margins in relation to operating profit during the majority of the period covered by the Decision . The applicant stresses ( 94/C 380/36 ) that whilst its pricing policies indicate in part an alignment with the conduct of its competitors, that alignment was due (Language of the case: English) solely to its knowledge of its competitors' conduct, which it obtained solely by monitoring the market . An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First f 1 ) Nos C(94 ) 1824 and C(94 ) 2135 final dated 13 and 26 July Instance of the European Communities on 7 October 1994 1994 . by Kartonfabriek de Eendracht NV, represented by Alexandre Vandencasteele of Liedkerke Wolters Waelbroeck & Kilpatrick ( Brussels ), and Gordon Boyd Buchanan Jeffrey of Lace Mawer, Solicitors ( Liverpool ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt . Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Cepi-Cartonboard against the Commission of the European Communities The applicant claims that the Court should : ( Case T-3 12/94 ) ( 94/C 380/37 ) — annul the Commission Decisions (*) or in the alternative, (Language of the case: English) — reduce the fine imposed by the Commission on KDE, An action against the Commission of the European — order the Commission to pay the costs . Communities was brought before the Court of First 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/15
Instance of the European Communities on 7 October 1994 In any event, even if statistics on order backlog and inflow by Cepi-Cartonboard ( Brussels ), represented by Denis were to be held contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ), Article 85 ( 3 ) Waelbroeck of Liedekerke Wolters Waelbroeck & would have to be applied . Kilpatrick ( Brussels ), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, ( x ) Decision C(94 ) 2135 of 13 July 1994 — Cartonboard . 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul Article 2 of the Decision of the Commission of 13 July 1994 ( J ) in the ' Cartonboard' proceeding in as Action brought on 7 October 1994 by Shell International much as : Chemical Company against the Commission of the European Communities — its wording is too vague to know its bearing on future ( Case T-3 13/94 ) information exchange systems to be applied by the ( 94/C 380/38 applicant, and
— it prohibits any exchange of information on the (Language of the case: English) present state of the order inflow and backlog, even if aggregated, An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First — order the Commission to pay the costs . Instance of the European Communities on 7 October 1994 by Shell International Chemical Company, ( London ) represented by Kenneth B. Parker QC instructed by John W. Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Osborne , Solicitor of Clifford Chance ( London), with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of The applicant, an international association of European Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 15 Cote d'Eich . cartonboard producers , challenges the decision of the Commission of 13 July 1994 , imposing fines for an The applicant claims that the Court should order : infringement of Article 85 of the EC Treaty, although it is not a formal addressee of that decision, in so far as Article 2 of the decision takes a negative position on the statistical — the Decision 94/599/EC of 27 July 1 994 ( 1 ), in so far as it information exchanges of the applicant itself. This related to the applicant, be anulled, infringement consists of a participation from about mid-1986 until at least April 1991 in an agreement and or concerted practice by which the producers supplying cartonboard in the Community have engaged in the acts — the fine be cancelled or substantially reduced in referred to in the Official Journal of the European amount, Communities notice in Case T-295/94 . and The applicant states firstly that the object of its application is merely to preserve its right to organize efficient statistical — the Commission pay the applicant's costs . information exchanges in the future, as they are now prohibited by the Decision . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
It considers therefore that the Article 2 of the Decision The applicant contends that the findings against it of should be annulled in so far as it applies not only to past infringement of Article 85 are erroneous , being based on a exchanges but also to future exchanges and thus amounts de materially incorrect appreciation of the facts and vitiated by facto to a formal decision taken on the applicant's manifest error of assessment . Further , or in the alternative , notification before hearing the applicant and without giving the applicant contends that the Commission failed to any proper reasoning as to why the arguments put forward observe essential procedural requirements in the by the latter in its notification should be rejected . administrative proceedings under Regulations 17/62 and 99/63 both at the stage leading to the Decision of The applicant still maintains that the aforesaid Article 2 21 December 1988 , annulled by the Court of Justice on prohibits certain exchanges of information and statistics 15 June 1994 , and subsequently . Accordingly the applicant which have been notified to the Commission and which do requests that the Court should annul the Decision in so far as not appear to be anti-competitive . Apart from the fact that it it relates to the applicant . is generally accepted that perfect information is an indispensable requirement for perfect competition and for Alternatively, even if, quod non, the applicant had infringed optimal allocation of society's scarce resources , in their Article 85 , the severity of the fine imposed upon the aggregated form these statistics , in reality, only provide applicant was based on a materially incorrect appreciation general information regarding trends of demand . of the gravity and/or duration of any such infringement, and No C 380/16 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94 in any event was excessive . The applicant accordingly Action brought on 9 October 1994 by Moritz J. Weig requests the Court to cancel the fine or substantially reduce GmbH & Co. KG against the Commission of the European its amount . Communities ( Case T-3 17/94 ) (!) OJ No L 239 , 14 . 9 . 1994 , p . 14 . ( 94/C 380/40 )
(Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Action brought on 8 October 1994 by Hoechst Instance of the European Communities on 9 October 1994 Aktiengesellschaft against the Commission of the European by Moritz J. Weig GmbH & Co . KG, whose registered office Communities is in Mayen ( Federal Republic of Germany), represented by ( Case T-3 16/94 ) Thomas Jestaedt, Munich, Karsten Metzlaff, Stuttgart, ( 94/C 380/39 ) and Hanns-Christian Salger, Frankfurt-am-Main, Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Dupont & Associes , 14a Rue des (Language of the case: German) Bains .
An action against the Commission of the European The applicant claims that the Court should : Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 October 1994 1 . declare void in full or in part the Commission Decision by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main ( Federal of 13 July 1994 ( C(94 ) 1824 final ) and 26 July 1994 Republic of Germany), represented by Hans Hellmann, ( C(94 ) 2135 final ); Rechtsanwalt, Cologne , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 1 1 Rue 2 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the Goethe . proceedings, including the costs which the applicant has incurred by reason of the lodging of a guarantee . The applicant claims that the Court should : In the alternative , the applicant claims that the Court 1 . annul the defendant's decision of 27 July 1994 , served should : on the applicant on 4 August 1994 , relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty 1 . reduce as it sees fit the fine imposed on the applicant by ( IV/31.865 — PVC ), in so far as it relates to the the Commission Decisions of 13 July 1994 ( C(94 ) 1824 applicant; final ) and 26 July 1994 ( C(94 ) 2135 final );
2 . in the alternative : set aside or reduce the fine imposed on 2 . order the Commission to pay the costs of the the applicant by Article 3 of that decision; proceedings , including the costs incurred by the applicant by reason of the lodging of a guarantee in the amount by which the fine is to be reduced . 3 . order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant also claims that the Court should : The applicant, a cartonboard-manufacturing company established under German law, contests the Commission 1 . order production of the report of the Hearing Officer Decision of 13 July 1994 which concluded that European and order that the applicant be granted access to it; suppliers of cartonboard had breached Article 85 of the EC Treaty . The alleged breach consists of the participation in an 2 . order that the applicant be granted access to the agreement and concerted practice from mid- 1986 to at least complete minutes of the hearing and all ancillary April 1991 , as already described in the Official Journal of documents; the European Communities notice of Case T-295/94 .
3 . take account of the identical procedural documents in The applicant claims that the Commission has, on the basis Case T-96/89 . of partially mistaken assumptions as to fact, incorrectly concluded that the infringement which it has found to exist Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: constitutes a particularly serious breach of Article 85 of the EC Treaty : The pleas in law are the same as those in Case T-3 15/94 — the Commission calculates an excessively long period for Wacker Chemie v. Commission of the European Communities . the infringement, — the Commission wrongly assumes that the undertakings involved in the infringement had taken measures to 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/17
control the supply of cartonboard in Europe . The The applicant claims that the Court should : applicant was not involved in any such measures, — reduce substantially the fine of ECU 1 million imposed — the Commission overlooks the fact that the infringement on Fiskeby 0 ), did not cause any economic damage : price increases were introduced only to a very limited extent and resulted — order the Commission to pay the costs of the from cost increases incurred by the undertakings . proceedings .
The exchange of information of which the Commission Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: complains is, in its essential features , not contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty . It must be possible for The applicant challenges the decision of the Commission of undertakings to exchange general information on the state 13 July 1994 , imposing fines for an infringement of of orders . Article 85 of the EC Treaty, in so far as it imposes a fine on Fiskeby of ECU 1 million . This infringement consists of a The fine which the Commission imposed on the applicant is participation from about mid-1986 until at least 1991 in an unduly severe : agreement and concerted practice by which the producers supplying cartonboard in the Community engaged in the — the starting point for determination of the fine at 9 % for acts referred to in the Official Journal of the European the 'ringleaders' and at 7,5 % for other undertakings Communities notice relating to Case T-295/94 . involved is unreasonably high, The applicant states in the first place that at an early stage in — the Commission discriminated against the applicant in the proceedings it admitted its participation in the cartel . relation to the other undertakings involved, It contends, however, that the fine imposed is high by any — the fine imposed on the applicant is excessive if standard and in particular is very high when compared with compared to other decisions of the Court or its turnover in cartonboard during the period in which the Commission , infringement in question was committed .
— the Commission failed to take proper account of the Furthermore , the applicant appears to have been the only applicant's cooperation during the proceeding, undertaking voluntarily to leave the Joint Marketing Committee prior to the ending of the cartel . No credit — by imposing a fine determined schematically according appears to have been given to the applicant for taking this to turnover, the Commission placed the applicant, as a step . Nor does it appear that the level of the fine properly single-product manufacturer, at a disadvantage reflects the fact that it is a small company which did not compared to the other undertakings involved . The participate in all aspects of the cartel and whose role was Commission failed to take account of the applicant's generally minor or passive . limited capacity . The fine is also too high, in terms of a percentage of EC turnover in cartonboard, when compared to the fines In the light of the manner in which the fines have been imposed on the 'ringleaders'. differentiated^ the Commission's decision is inadequately reasoned and to that extent infringes Article 190 of the EC Treaty . ( J ) Decision C(94 ) 2135 final of 13 July 1994 — Cartonboard .
Action brought on 11 October 1994 by Union Carbide Action brought on 10 October 1994 by Fiskeby Board AB Corporation against the Commission of the European against the Commission of the European Communities Communities ( Case T-3 19/94 ) ( Case T-322/94 ) ( 94/C 380/41 ) ( 94/C 380/42 )
(Language of the case: English) (Language of the case: English)
An action against the Commission of the European An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 10 October 1994 Instance of the European Communities on 11 October 1994 by Fiskeby Board AB, ( Sweden ) represented by Carl Wetter by Union Carbide Corporation, represented by Brian Advokatfirman Vinge , and Christopher Vajda , Barrister, Hartnett BL, with an address for service in Luxembourg at with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias of Elvinger , Hoss & Prussen , 15 Cote d'Eich . Hardt . No C 380/18 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
The applicant claims that the Court should : Secondly, the parties' commitments do not assure that both, or even either, of the leading PP technologies will remain competitively viable . The incentives on which the — annul, in whole or in part, Commission Decision Commission relied will not assure that Shell will maintain No IV/M.269 — Shell/Montecatini , and the competitive viability of the Unipol technology and license it freely and vigorously . Moreover, Technipol has — order the Commission to pay the costs, disbursements not been established and provided with resources in a way and fees of the applicant pursuant to Article 87 of the that would enable it to conduct an independent, Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance of the competitively vigorous PP technology licensing business . European Communities . Thirdly, the commitments do not eliminate the ability of the notifying parties adversely to affect competition in the PP Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: resin market by exercising market power over the two leading PP technologies and thus negatively affecting the The applicant, an undertaking which operates in a wide conditions of competition on the PP resin market . range of markets , including the licensing, via a joint venture with Shell Oil , of its UnipolPP technology, challenges the The applicant further submits that the Commission erred in Commission's decision which concluded that the proposed assessing the transaction, both as originally notified and as concentration in the polyolefins sector, between Shell and modified , as 'concentrative ' in nature within the meaning of Montedison , 'as subsequently amended by the the Merger Regulation and therefore should have examined commitments offered by the parties, would not lead to the the notified transaction under Article 85 of the EC creation of reinforcement of a dominant position on the Treaty . markets for PP technology and PP resin production and sale . The concentration can therefore be declared compatible within the meaning of Article 8 ( 2 ) of the Merger Finally, the applicant asserts that the Commission's Regulation'. Decision is vitiated by its infringement of essential procedural requirements , namely its failure to afford itself sufficient time to investigate the impact of the undertaking; In the above transaction Shell and Montedison originally to give full effect to the applicant's right to be heard under sought to establish a joint venture ( referred to as ' Sophia') in Article 18 ( 4 ) of the Merger Regulation; to permit a the polyolefins business to which each would contribute meaningful consultation of the Advisory Committee as is substantially all of their assets in that sector, including assets required under Article 19 ( 5 ) of the Merger Regulation ; to relating to the sale of polypropylene ('PP') and PP adduce sufficient and material evidence to support its technology . The Commission stated that the two leading PP findings of fact; and finally to state the reasons on which its technologies , UCC/Shell Oil's 'Unipol' and Montedison's Decision is based clearly and unequivocally, as required ' Spheripol' would thus be brought within the control of under Article 190 of the EC Treaty . Shell and would lead to the creation of a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in the worldwide market for the licensing of PP technology and would create serious doubts as to the possible creation of a dominant position in the western European PP resin market. In commitments delivered during the final stages of the Commission's investigations, the notifying parties undertook to transfer the licensing of Spheripol technology to an existing or newly Action brought on 13 October 1994 by Imperial Chemical created , wholly owned subsidiary of Montedison, Industries pic against the Commission of the European 'Technipol', which would be operated as an independent, Communities viable and vigorous competitor . The parties also undertook ( Case T-328/94 ) that Montedison would withdraw from Ontefina, its PP ( 94/C 380/43 resin joint venture with Petrofina . The Commission ruled that the commitments would change the anticompetitive impact of the transaction and declared the concentration to (Language of the case: English) be compatible with the common market .
The applicant claims that the Commission's Decision is An action against the Commission of the European erroneous in determining that the commitments given by the Communities was brought before the Court of First parties alleviated the anti-competitive effect of the Instance of the European Communities on 13 October 1994 concentration . by Imperial Chemical Industries pic, ( London ) represented by David Vaughan QC and David Andersen, Barrister and Victor O. White and Richard J. Coles , Solicitors, with an Firstly, the parties' commitments have not eliminated the address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of existence of a common influence over the two leading PP Dupong & Konsbruck , 14a rue des Bains . technologies , since the licensing of both technologies can be influenced by Sophia's parents to serve Sophia's objectives . The applicant claims that the Court should : 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/19
1 , annul Decision 94/599/EC dated 27 July 1994 ( l ), The applicant claims that the Court should :
2 . alternatively, to cancel or reduce the fine imposed on ICI, — annul the Commission's Decision in its letter of 5 August 1994 to the applicant's solicitors , that it has found no 3 . order the Commission to pay ICI's costs . reason to propose appropriate measures regarding the Scheme pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ), Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: — declare that the Commission be held liable for any The application is based on the following grounds : damage suffered by the applicant, A. Procedural issues of particular relevance to the taking of a new Decision : — order that the Commission pay the applicant's costs .
— Limitation,
— Delay in taking the Decision, Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— Non bis in idem , The applicant maintains that the Commission's decision of 5 August 1994 , that it had found no reason to propose — Infringement of the rights of defence , appropriate measures pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ) regarding the Dutch regional aid scheme , the 'Sussidieregeling — Violation of the role of the Hearing Officer, regionale investeringsprojecken 1991 ' ('the Scheme'), has — Absence of consultation of the Advisory infringed the rules of the Treaty and essential procedural Committee . requirements under it . It expounds hat the Scheme was authorized by the Commission pursuant to Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ) B. Other procedural issues : of the Treaty and holds that this conclusion was reached on the basis of an incomplete , and thus unlawful , review of the — Article 20 of Regulation 17, Scheme pursuant to Article 93 ( 1 ) of the Treaty .
— Access to the Commission's file , The applicant explains that in October 1993 it heard about — Privilege against self-incrimination, the possibility that various forms of public subsidy might be granted to the Dutch company, Frima BV, for the — Duty to give reasons . construction of a salt plant in Harlingen , Friesland in the Netherlands ; it wrote to the Commission asking it to carry C. Wrong factual assessment . out a preliminary investigation on that matter , but the Commission, after an exchange of correspondence , decided D. Wrong legal assessment . not to follow up this request .
E. Wrong appreciation in relation to the assessment of the fine . In a letter dated 5 August 1994 to Salt Union's legal representatives, the Commission said that : ( a ) the grant by the Netherlands Government of aid for the construction of a salt plant at Harlingen in Friesland complied with the ( J ) OJ No L 239 , 14 . 9 . 1994 , p . 14 . general conditions subject to which the aid scheme was authorized in 1990 ; ( b ) the province of Friesland continued to meet the criteria used by the Commission in assessing whether a region was eligible for regional aid pursuant to Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ); and ( c ) the Commission had found, as a result, no reason to propose appropriate measures regarding Action brought on 13 October 1994 by Salt Union Limited the Scheme to the Netherlands Government . against the Commission of the European Communities ( Case T-330/94 ) The applicant asserts that this decision infringes the ( 94/C 380/44 ) requirements of Articles 93 ( 1 ) and 92 ( 3 ) ( c ), since such an assessment does not take account of the likely impact of the (Language of the case: English) proposed grant of aid to Frima BV upon the market ( as required by Article 93 ( 1 )), nor does it enable the An action against the Commission of the European Commission to determine whether the requirement in Communities was brought before the Court of First Article 92 ( 3 ) ( c ), that the Scheme operates in a manner Instance of the European Communities on 13 October 1994 which does not adversely affect trading interests to an extent by Salt Union Limited , represented by Jonathan Scott and contrary to the common interest, continues to be met . As a Craig Pouncey, Solicitors of Herbert Smith, Brussels with an result, the Commission was not in a position to reach a address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Mr proper conclusion as to whether there was any obligation on Georges Baden, 8 , Boulevard Royal . it to propose appropriate measures to the Netherlands No C 380/20 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94 government regarding that proposal of aid and, if necessary, — it did not take part in an alleged agreement to freeze subsequently to open the procedure under Article 93 ( 2 ) of market quotas and control supplies . the Treaty . The applicant asserts in this connection that there is no documentary evidence to establish that it participated in the agreements to safeguard the effectiveness of the cartel . Moreover, at least so far as the applicant itself is specifically concerned , the conduct which may in abstract terms Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Sarrid SA against logically prove such participation has either not been the Commission of the European Communities established or, where ostensibly established, can more convincingly be construed as relating to matters other than ( Case T-334/94 ) involvement in the agreement, such as the features and ( 94/C 380/45 ) method of operation of the market in cartonboard . Sarrio never benefitted from any 'freezing' of the market and was (Language of the case: Italian) in fact exposed to the full expansive force of competition, which it sought to counter by adopting a policy of reorganizing its own resources and seeking and developing An action against the Commission of the European markets outside Italy . With regard to prices, the Communities was brought before the Court of First Commission ought also to have concluded that in the period Instance of the European Communities on 14 October 1994 under consideration the prices actually charged by by Sarrio SA, whose registered office is in Pamplona ( Spain), manufacturers were dependent on fundamental economic represented by Antonio Creus Carreras, of the Barcelona variables and that consequently the alleged concerted Bar, Alberto Mazzoni , of the Milan Bar, and Antonio practices did not have any real effect on trade . Tizzano , of the Naples Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alain Lorang . On the other hand, the fact that the applicant had participated in a prohibited restrictive agreement does not in The applicant claims that the Court should : law justify the conclusion that it can also be held liable for breaches which it did not actually commit . Indeed, the fact — annul Commission Decision 94/601/EC of 13 Tuly that Sarrio attended the meetings of the President Working 1994 , Group ( PWG ) did not for all that mean that it was one of the undertakings responsible for the initiatives which, — in the alternative : according to the Commission, were adopted by the group . — annul Article 2 of the decision, According to the applicant, the Commission has also — annul Article 3 of the decision in so far as it imposes a infringed its rights to a fair hearing in so far as it used in its fine of ECU 15 500 000 on Sarrio, decision, as evidence of infringement, a document brought to the attention of Sarrio after an unjustifiable delay and — in the further alternative, reduce that fine , against which it was deprived of any possibility of effectively arguing in its own defence . More specifically, the — order the defendant to pay the costs of the Commission reconstructed the price increase of April 1989 proceedings . on the basis of an undated document containing a number of comments in Swedish on the prices of some types of cartonboard . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant contests the Commission decision of 13 July (!) OJ No L 243 , 19 . 9 . 1994, p . 1 . 1994 ( ! ) which, as already set out in the Official Journal of the European Communities notice of Case T-295/94 , concluded that certain conduct attributed to cartonboard-manufacturing undertakings was contrary to Article 85 ( 1 ) of the EEC Treaty and imposed very heavy fines on those undertakings . Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Efisol against the The applicant claims that : Commission of the European Communities ( Case T-336/94 ) — it did not, as alleged , participate in an agreement designed to safeguard a system of uniform and effective ( 94/C 380/46 ) control over transaction prices; (Language of the case: French) — there was not, as alleged, any agreement to freeze market quotas and control supplies by way of halting production or diverting production to overseas An action against the Commission of the European markets; Communities was brought before the Court of First 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/21
Instance of the European Communities on 14 October 1994 Action brought on 14 October 1994 by Finnish Board Mills by Efisol, whose registered office is in Paris , represented by Association — Finnboard against the Commission of the Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and by Jean-Yves Art, of European Communities the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg ( Case T-338/94 ) at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias Hardt . ( 94/C 380/47 ) (Language of the case: German)
The applicant claims that the Court should : An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 14 October 1994 1 . order the defendant to pay compensation for the by Finnish Board Mills Association — Finnboard , whose damage suffered by the applicant, amounting to FF registered office is in Helsinki ( Finland ), represented by 2 242 703 together with interest for late payment at an Hans Hellmann and Hans-Joachim Voges, Rechtsanwalte , annual rate of 8 % from the date on which the Court of Cologne , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the First Instance delivers judgment; and Chambers of Loesch & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe . The applicant claims that the Court should : 2 . order the defendant to pay the costs . 1 . annul, in so far as it relates to the applicant, the defendant's decision of 13 July 1994 relating to a proceeding under Article 85 of the EC Treaty Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: ( IV/C/33.833 — Cartonboard ), which was served on the applicant on 5 August 1994 and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities on The applicant company challenges the Commission's refusal 19 September 1994 ; to grant the licences necessary to import in the alternative : chlorofluorocarbon ( CFC ) 11 from Russia . The refusal was based on Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 594/91 on reduce the fine; substances that deplete the ozone layer, which was adopted in order to comply with the obligations of the Community 2 . order the defendant to pay the costs of the under the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the proceedings . Ozone Layer and the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: The applicant, a cartonboard-manufacturing company The principal argument is that in this case the applicant incorporated under Finnish law, contests the Commission sought a quota for imports of CFC 11 for the manufacture decision of 13 July 1994 which concluded that European of polyurethane foam and that the Commission granted the suppliers of cartonboard had infringed Article 85 of the EC quota for imports of CFC 1 1 to be used as the raw material Treaty . The alleged infringement consists in the for manufacturing other chemical products . On 25 January participation in an agreement and concerted practice from 1 994 the defendant institution informed the applicant that it mid-1986 until at least April 1991 , as already described in intended to authorize it to import in 1994 1 800 tonnes of the OfficialJournal ofthe European Communities notice of CFC 11 to be used as the raw material for manufacturing Case T-295/94 . chemical products . That intention was confirmed on The application is directed against the contested decision as 4 February 1994, when Decision 94/84 fixing various a whole . The applicant argues that there has been a breach of import quotas was adopted, but by letter of 28 February procedural requirements and an incorrect application of 1994 the Commission declared that it would not issue substantive law in both factual and legal contexts , in import licences for the quotas allocated by that decision . It particular an incorrect application of Article 85 ( 1 ) of the based its refusal on the fact that using CFC to produce EC Treaty and Article 15 ( 2 ) of Regulation No 17/62 . polyurethane foam was not using it as a 'raw material'. The applicant also objects to the unlawful and disproportionate manner in which the fine imposed was The applicant considers that the refusal to grant import calculated . licences breaches the principle of legitimate expectations . The allocation of an import quota to the applicant led it to The applicant argues in this case that the allegation made believe that it would be granted the corresponding import against it, to the effect that it participated between licences subsequently . The refusal to grant them has also mid-1986 and April 1991 in an agreement and concerted caused it considerable financial loss . practice of the cartonboard industry within the Community, has not been proved by the evidence adduced by the Commission and that the conclusions which the Commission has drawn from that evidence are inadmissible . The applicant also submits — as evidence to the contrary — that it in any event was not, and could not have been, No C 380/22 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
involved in an agreement or concerted practice with regard main European cartonboard manufacturers and imposed to market shares, just as it was not, and could not have been, fines in that regard, as already set out in the OfficialJournal one of the 'ringleaders' of the cartel . In conclusion, the of the European Communities notice of Case T-295/94 applicant submits that the Commission breached Buchmann v. Commission . mandatory law when it determined the fine , in so far as the applicant's turnover was incorrectly calculated . Moreover, The application is first based on the argument that the the decision was patently based on a mistaken contested decision fails to comply with the fundamental determination of facts with regard to the calculation of the right to an independent and impartial tribunal, recognized fine . The assessment criteria which the decision itself in Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection established for the applicant were also incorrectly applied in of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in the that decision . constitutional traditions common to the Member States , as referred to in Article F ( 2 ) of the Treaty on European Union . By adopting the contested decision, the Commission in effect acted as both judge and party, without the Community judicature , on the other hand, having any genuine power of plenary jurisdiction .
Action brought on 18 October 1994 by Enso Espanola SA Second , both the statement of complaints and the contested against the Commission of the European Communities decision itself suffer from a lack of clarity in the ( Case T-348/94 ) determination of the relevant economic market . As a consequence, the accusations levelled against the applicant ( 94/C 380/48 in the decision are wider in scope than those put forward in the statement of complaints . (Language of the case: Spanish) Third, the decision on the findings presents serious defects in its reasoning in relation to various aspects regarding the An action against the Commission of the European definition of the relevant geographical market, the Communities was brought before the Court of First assessment of the role of the undertakings and the method of Instance of the European Communities on 18 October 1994 calculation used to obtain the figure of ECU 1 750 000 by Enso Espanola SA, represented by Antonio Creus and Xavier Ruiz, of the Barcelona Bar , Jose Ramon imposed as a fine . Garcia-Gallardo, of the Burgos Bar, and Bonifacio Garcia Porras, of the Salamanca Bar, with an address for service at Finally, the allegation that the applicant participated in a the Chambers of Cuatrecasas, 78 Avenue d'Auderghem, joint industry-wide plan to restrict competition is totally Brussels . erroneous and without foundation, as are also the specific allegations concerning the applicant's putative participation in agreements relating to prices and control of business The applicant claims that the Court should : volume, market shares and the division of markets .
( i ) declare void in whole or in part the Commission decision of 13 July 1994 (( 94 ) 1824 final ) in so far as it applies to the applicant;
( ii ) in the alternative, set aside the fine imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision, in the event that Action brought on 21 October 1994 by Norsk Hydro A/S the decision is upheld in whole or in part; against the Commission of the European Communities ( Case T-355/94 ) ( iii ) in the further alternative, reduce substantially the fine ( 94/C 380/49 ) imposed on the applicant by Article 3 of that decision, in the event that the decision is upheld in whole or in part; (Language of the case: English)
( iv ) order the Commission to pay the applicant all the costs An action against the Commission of the European resulting from the proceedings , including the costs and Communities was brought before the Court of First interest arising in connection with the lodging of a Instance of the European Communities on 21 October 1994 guarantee or possible payment of all or part of the by Norsk Hydro A/S , represented by Rechtsanwalt Jochen fine . Burrichter of Hengeler Mueller Weitzel Wirtz with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand'Rue . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Spanish company operating in the The applicant claims that the Court should : cartonboard sector, contests the Commission decision of 13 July 1994 in which the Commission concluded that there — annul the request of the defendant of 8 August 1994 for had been infringements of Article 85 of the EC Treaty by the the payment of the amount of ECU 1 015 024,07, 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/23
— order the defendant to pay the costs . Action brought on 31 October 1994 by Henry A. Weir against the Commission of the European Communities Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: ( Case T-361/94 ) ( 94/C 380/50 ) The applicant is one of the 14 undertakings concerned by Commission Decision 89/190/EEC relating to a proceeding (Language of the case: German) pursuant to Article 85 of the EC Treaty ('PVC Decision'). A fine of ECU 750 000 was imposed on it by that decision . An action against the Commission of the European Its application to the Court of First Instance against the PVC Communities was brought before the Court of First Decision was dismissed by order of 19 June 1990 Instance of the European Communities on 31 October 1994 ( T-106/89 ) as being out of time . by Henry A. Weir , of Glasgow ( Scotland , United Kingdom ), represented by Bernd Potthast and Hans-Josef Ruber, After the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rechtsanwalte , with an address for service in Luxembourg 27 February 1992 in Joined Cases T-89/89 and others , by at the Chambers of Ernest Arendt, 8—10 Rue Mathias which the PVC Decision was declared non-existent, the Hardt, BP 39 , L-2010 Luxembourg . applicant sought revision of the abovementioned order, which suspended the proceedings on the application for revision pending delivery of the judgment of the Court of The applicant claims that the Court should : Justice on the appeal by the defendant against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 February 1992 . 1 . order the Commission to withdraw its decision of 25 February 1994 ; The Court of Justice finally set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and annulled the PVC Decision for 2 . order the Commission to recalculate the lump sum in infringement of the first paragraph of the defendant accordance with Article 73 ( 2 ) ( c ) on the basis of the institution's Rules of Procedure in that the defendant did basic monthly salary which the official would have not duly authenticate the said decision . The Court of Justice received , were it not for the accident and the resulting attached an effect 'erga omnes ' to its judgment . partial invalidity, in the last 12 months before the medical committee issued its opinion in accordance with By its order of 1 July 1994 the Court of First Instance Article 23 of the Rules on the Insurance of Officials of dismissed as inadmissible the application for revision made the European Communities against Accident and by the applicant on 21 May 1992 . Occupational Disease;
By Commission Decision of 27 July 1994 ('PVC 3 . in the alternative, award the applicant compensation in Decision II'), the defendant imposed on 12 of the addressees such amount as the Court shall deem appropriate for of PVC Decision I the same fines as in that decision . In the loss of purchasing power of the benefits granted under same act the defendant argued that PVC Decision I was to be Article 73 ( 2 ) ( c ) based on the monthly basic salary for regarded as remaining valid as regards the applicant, since the last 12 months before the accident; its application was declared inadmissible . On that basis the defendant, by letter of 8 August 1994, requested the 4 . order the Commission to pay interest on the applicant to pay the sum of ECU 1 015 024,07 . compensatory amount awarded under Article 73 of the Staff Regulations at the rate of 6 % per annum from The applicant submits that, contrary to the position taken 17 October 1987, or in the alternative from 12 April by the defendant in the request for payment and in PVC 1991 ; Decision II, PVC Decision I is no longer valid and can no longer be enforced against the applicant, as the judgment annulling it has effects erga omnes, i.e. also in favour of the 5 . order the Commission to pay the costs . applicant . Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: The applicant states on that point that it was immediately affected by PVC Decision I because that decision was taken as one single act, in the same meeting of the defendant, The applicant, a former official of the Commission at Ispra , against all addressees, and was based on the same facts and challenges the decision determining the benefits payable to considerations as regards all of them . Therefore all him under Article 73 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Staff Regulations for addressees of PVC Decision I, irrespective of whether or not permanent partial invalidity resulting from an accident he they have successfully appealed, are also immediately had on 17 October 1987 as amounting to Bfrs 2 899 870 on affected by the judgment concerning PVC Decision I, which the basis of the yearly basic salary over the last 12 months makes that decision void with respect to , amongst others , before the accident and an invalidity rate of 25 % . the applicant . He does not challenge the rate of invalidity but considers that discrimination and arbitrary unequal treatment occurs where an official is granted the lump sum to which he is No C 380/24 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94 entitled as a result of the accident only after a long delay, outside the Community, in order to obtain full attributable to the complexity of the sequelae of the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred by a person accident, thus resulting in considerable loss of purchasing dependent on him and that his claim was rejected on the power which in his case amounts to more than 30 % of the ground that the expenses were not incurred in the place of original value . employment; the non-reimbursed expenses amount to Bfrs 538 . In the alternative , the applicant seeks compensation in accordance with Article 215 , paragraph 2 , of the EEC The applicant considers that the decision restricting Treaty in the form of interest covering the amount of additional sickness insurance cover constitutes a breach of depreciation, on the ground of culpable delay in paying the Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations . The article in compensation due . question lays down the right, without any restriction whatsoever, to full reimbursement of expenses not covered by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme incurred by the persons expressly mentioned therein, that is to say, officials , their spouses, their children and other dependants ; the Commission may not, therefore, limit its scope without Action brought on 3 November 1994 by Jan Robert de Rijk breaching it . against the Commission of the European Communities ( Case T-362/94 ) As far as the DGE are concerned , the applicant claims that ( 94/C 380/51 ) they are unlawful in that they provide that dependants of an official who is a member of the insurance scheme and whose (Language of the case: French) place of employment is outside the Community are covered by additional sickness insurance as long as they are permanently resident in the official's place of employment . An action against the Commission of the European Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations covers Communities was brought before the Court of First officials and their dependants wherever they may live, which Instance of the European Communities on 3 November would imply that the DGE introduce a condition which is 1994 by Jan Robert de Rijk, of Helsinki, represented by not laid down in the article to which they are supposed to Nicolas Lhoest, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for give effect . service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire Myson Sari, 1 Rue Glesener .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— annul the Commission's decision of 18 January 1994 to Action brought on 17 November 1994 by Jacques Vigel reimburse the applicant the sum of Bfrs 4 412 by way of against the Commission of the European Communities additional sickness insurance, ( Case T-3 70/94 ) — so far as is necessary, annul the decision adopted by the ( 94/C 380/52 ) Commission on 15 July 1994, expressly rejecting the applicant's complaint, (Language of the case: French) — order the defendant to pay the whole difference between the expenses actually incurred and the benefits under the An action against the Commission of the European Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme , in the present case the Communities was brought before the Court of First sum of Bfrs 4 950 , Instance of the European Communities on 17 November 1994 by Jacques Vigel, residing at Bergen ( Netherlands ), — declare that the general provisions for giving effect to the represented by Constantin Nikis , of the Brussels Bar, with first and second paragraphs of Article 24 of Annex X to an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of the Staff Regulations ( hereinafter 'the DGE') are Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim . unlawful and , consequently, withdraw them, The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance — order the defendant to pay all the costs of the should : proceedings . — annul the appointing authority's decision — the date of Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: which is unknown to the applicant and of which he was made aware by Notice to Staff No PE/A/637 of 20 April In support of his action, the applicant alleges that the 1994, published by the Petten Joint Research Centre — defendant has breached Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff excluding the applicant, with respect to promotion to Regulations and that the general provisions for giving effect Category B, Grade 1 , from the 1994 promotion lists for to the first and second paragraphs of Article 24 of Annex X the scientific and technical services, to the Staff Regulations are unlawful . — annul the implied decision rejecting the complaint made The applicant states that he made a claim pursuant to by the applicant on 23 June 1994 and registered at the Article 24 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations , concerning Secretariat-General of the Commission on 28 June additional sickness insurance covering officials employed 1994 , 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/25
— award the applicant the sum of Bfrs 75 000 , subject to Instance of the European Communities on 22 November adjustment in the course of the proceedings , by way of 1994 by Georgette Otten , residing in Brussels , represented compensation for non-material damage suffered by the by Jean-Noel Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for applicant by reason of his exclusion, with respect to service in Luxembourg at the head office of Fiduciaire promotion to Category B , Grade 1 , from the 1994 Myson S.aR.L. , 1 Rue Glesener . promotion lists for the scientific and technical services , The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance — award the applicant the sum of Bfrs 250 000 , subject to should : adjustment in the course of proceedings , by way of compensation for material damage suffered by the applicant following his exclusion from any possibility of — annul the decision of 13 January 1994 of the promotion, Commission's Director of ' Rights and Obligations' granting the applicant an invalidity pension calculated in — order the Commission to pay the costs in their accordance with the third paragraph of Article 78 of the entirety . Staff Regulations, and
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: — annul the implied decision rejecting the applicant's complaint of 20 April 1994 . The applicant claims , first, that the list of promotions to B1 was decided and drawn up without proper examination, in accordance with a proper procedure, of the applicant's case Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: and without serious consideration, on a basis of equality, of the comparative merits of the various officials , as is required in the interest of the service, all of which constitutes an In support of her application, the applicant alleges, first, infringement of Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and a infringement of Article 7 of Annex II to the Staff breach of the principles of equal treatment and sound Regulations , claiming that the Commission itself appointed administration . the three doctors whose responsibility it was to ascertain whether she was physically fit to perform the duties The applicant further considers that the defendant failed to corresponding to a post in her career bracket, from which it comply with the second paragraph of Article 25 of the Staff follows that the medical committee , which met on Regulations , which provides that any decision adversely 13 December 1993 and concluded that she was in a state of affecting an official must state the grounds on which it is total permanent invalidity, had not been properly based . The decision excluding the applicant from the list of constituted . promotions contains no statement of reasons , nor does the administrative file in the applicant's possession disclose the reasons which led the appointing authority to take that The applicant further considers that the Invalidity decision . Committee's conclusions are vitiated by a manifest error of assessment . The applicant contests the soundness of the Lastly, the applicant claims that he has been systematically Invalidity Committee's conclusions in so far as the third excluded from the promotion lists since 1984 , without ever doctor is not competent, given his field of specialization, to being informed of any reason , whereas his excellent staff evaluate the applicant's fitness to perform her duties . The reports reassured him of his prospects of promotion . In the applicant also maintains that the contested decision was applicant's view, that constitutes a service-related fault on adopted for the sole purpose of putting an end to the dispute the part of the defendant, giving rise to a right to between herself and her institution over the unlawful nature compensation for the material and non-material damage of her transfer from DG XII to DG I. which he considers himself to have suffered . Lastly, the applicant considers that the contested decision is vitiated by a total failure to state the grounds on which it is based, contrary to Article 25 of the Staff Regulations . In that connection, the applicant points out that the decision is expressly based on the Invalidity Committee's conclusions but that those conclusions do not enable the Court of First Action brought on 22 November 1994 by Georgette Otten Instance to verify whether the procedure was lawfully against the Commission of the European Communities conducted or, particularly, whether the conclusions ( Case T-3 76/94 ) themselves are based on a reasoned medical opinion ( 94/C 380/53 establishing a plausible connection between the medical findings set out therein and the conclusion that she is physically unfit to perform her duties . (Language of the case: French)
An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First No C 380/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Action brought on 25 November 1994 by Josephus Knijff of Auditors should have credited the applicant with over six against the Court of Auditors of the European years' seniority at the time of his appointment, with the Communities result that his appointment would perforce have been to ( Case T-3 78/94 ) Grade A 4 . ( 94/C 380/54 ) By its conduct in that respect, the defendant acted in breach of the duty to have regard for the welfare of employees and (Language of the case: French) the duty of proper administration .
An action against the Court of Auditors of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 November 1994 by Josephus Knijff, residing at Assenois ( Belgium ), represented by Jean-Paul Noesen , of the Luxembourg Bar , with an address for service in Luxembourg at the latter's Action brought on 29 November 1994 by International Chambers, 18 Rue des Glacis . Association of Users of Yarns of Man-made Fibres and of Natural Silk ( AIUFFASS ) and Apparel, Knitting and The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance Textiles Alliance ( AKT ) against the Commission of the should : European Communities ( Case T-3 80/94 ) — declare the action formally admissible and well ( 94/C 380/55 ) founded ,
— annul the appointing authority's decision of 29 August (Language of the case: French) 1994 with respect to a complaint lodged by the applicant on 5 May 1994 against a decision of the appointing In action against the Commission of the European authority, given on 9 February 1994 , following the Communities was brought before the Court of First proceedings brought under Article 90 ( 2 ) of the Staff Instance of the European Communities on 29 November Regulations, together with those acts adversely affecting 1994 by the International Association of Users of Yarns of him which preceded that decision, Man-made Fibres and of Natural Silk ( AIUFFASS ), whose office is at Ghent, Belgium, and Apparel , Knitting and — order the defendant to pay the costs . Textiles Alliance ( AKT), whose office is at London , both represented by Michel Waelbroeck and Jules Stuyck, of the Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8—10 Rue Mathias The applicant states that in 1986 he was engaged as a Hardt . member of the temporary staff in Grade A 4 , Step 4 , in one of the posts to be filled in consultation with the National Audit Institutions ( NAI ); that, on the expiry of his NAI The applicants claim that the Court should : contract, he successfully took part in a selection procedure for a temporary post and , consequently, was engaged as a — declare the application admissible and well-founded, member of the temporary staff in Grade A 5 , Step 3 , which entailed for him significantly less favourable — annul the Commission's decision, in a letter addressed to remuneration . the British government and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities of 29 September Since the appointing authority rejected a request for the 1994 , authorizing, under Article 92 ( 3 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of the restoration of the applicant's career development, the latter EC Treaty, the British Government to grant an aid of brought the action in Case T-55/92 . In February 1993 , £61 million to Hualon, however, in the course of the written procedure in that case , the applicant became aware of Decision 85-5 concerning the — order the Commission to pay the costs . appointment by grade and the classification by step of members of the temporary staff previously with the National Audit Institutions who were recruited ta fill posts Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support: which the budgetary authorities have classified as temporary . That decision provides that NAI employees The applicants state that the two main arguments on which appointed to temporary posts are always to be appointed to the Commission based the contested decision are, firstly, Grade A 4 . In his reply in Case T-55/92 the applicant relied that the projected investment will lead to the creation of a on that decision in support of his claim . However, since the substantial number of jobs (1 800 direct jobs ) in a region of application in that case was declared inadmissible , the Court the Community which is suffering from serious problems of First Instance was unable to consider the merits of that and , secondly, that the investment will not aggravate the plea in law . existing excess capacity, since production by Hualon will take the place of imports of the products in question from In that connection the applicant claims that the contested third countries . The applicants submit that those decision breached the criteria laid down in Decision 85-5 for assessments involve several manifest errors on the part of determining seniority, in accordance with which the Court the Commission in assessing the facts . 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/27
The applicants argue, firstly, that the actual number of 16 . T-76/93 Richard Müller, Bad Windsheim ( BRD ) direct jobs which could be created by the investment is much 17 . T-78/93 Werner Herking, Gronau-Epe ( BRD ) lower than estimated by the Commission . They also submit that even if the figures given were correct, the Commission 18 . T-79/93 Karl May, Drensteinfurt-Walstedde ( BRD ) completely ignores the fact that the creation of jobs as a 19 . T-80/93 Hans Brörmann, Neuenkirchen ( BRD ) result of the contested investment will be at the expense of existing jobs in other regions of the Community, including 20 . T-81/93 Jan-Wilhelm Evers , Hoogstede ( BRD ) the most impoverished regions . 21 . T-83/93 Karl-Heinz Schöndube , Grasleben ( BRD ) As to the argument that there would be no aggravation of 22 . T-84/93 Johannes Franken, Kevelaer ( BRD ) excess capacity, the applicants submit that the Commission committed several manifest errors in assessing the facts , in 23 . T-86/93 Ferdinand Krieft, Harsewinkel-Marienfeld that, firstly, it evaluated in a manifestly erroneous way the ( BRD ) position of Community producers in the low range products 24 . T-90/93 Christine Schulte-Stratmann, segment; secondly, it completely overlooked the fact that Meschede-Remblinghausen ( BRD ) air-jet and water-jet looms are used for the manufacture of high quality fabrics as well as low range products ; thirdly, it 25 . T-93/93 Heinrich Tewordt, Rhede ( BRD ) did not distinguish clearly between mass products and those 26 . T-100/93 BGB-Gesellschaft Paul Orth und Heinrich with higher added value ; furthermore , it did not carry out a Orth , Zülpich ( BRD ) precise and complete analysis of the market in the products affected by the contested aid ; and finally, the forecasts in the 27 . T-l 14/93 Robert Klinkhammer, Rees-Empel ( BRD ) decision relating to developments in demand for MFA2 and 28 . T-l 16/93 Peter Dethlefs , Groven ( BRD ) MFA35 category products are scarcely credible . 29 . T-l 17/93 Bruno Hess, Hagermarsch ( BRD ) 30 . T-l 18/93 Frank Rövenich, Euskirchen-Elsig ( BRD ) 31 . T-119/93 Paula Großbölting-Gries, Removal from the register of Case T-50/93 ( ) and others Hamminkeln-Loikum ( BRD ) ( 94/C 380/56 ) 32 . T-120/93 Johann Ingendae, Sonsbeck ( BRD ) 33 . T-121/93 Josef-Walter Schaffer , Adelsheim ( BRD ) (Language of the case: German) 34 . T-123/93 Friedrich Bock, Springe 9 ( BRD ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 35 . T-125/93 Hans-Josef Hallmans, Nideggen ( BRD ) Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case 36 . T-127/93 Arno Eikmeier, Barkenholm ( BRD ) T-50/93 and others : Robert and Luise Haas and other milk 37 . T-128/93 Johann Hurtz , Nideggen-Berg ( BRD ) producers listed below v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . 38 . T-129/93 Johannes Hegering, Hamminkeln ( BRD ) Annex to the Order of the President of 31 August 1994 in 39 . T-131/93 Bernhard Stuckenberg , Neuenkirchen Cases T-50/93 and others ( BRD ) 40 . T-135/93 Karl-Heinrich List, Ringgau-Netra ( BRD ) 1 . T-57/93 Franz-Josef Voß, Drensteinfurt-Rinkerode ( BRD ) 41 . T-140/93 Harald Kalck, Ringgau-Netra ( BRD )
2 . T- 58/93 Heinz Vögeling, Drensteinfurt 2 ( BRD ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . 3 . T-59/93 Franz-Josef Ott, Ingoldingen-Grodt ( BRD ) 4 . T-60/93 Norbert Frie , Lippetal-Lippborg ( BRD ) 5 . T-61/93 Gerhard Brand, Rödelhausen ( BRD ) 6 . T-62/93 Paul Gövert, Nottuln ( BRD ) Removal from the register of Cases T-51/93 (*), T-196/93 and T-214/93 7 . T-63/93 Heinz-Bernd Kamp , Wipperfürth ( BRD ) ( 94/C 380/57 ) 8 . T-64/93 Kurt Horst, Hüllhorst 5 ( BRD ) 9 . T-65/93 Johannes Brautmeier, Delbrück-Ostenland (Language of the case: German) ( BRD ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second 10 . T-67/93 Ludwig Banning, Wettringen ( BRD ) Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 11 . T-68/93 Heinz Bons , Kerken 2 ( BRD ) Communities ordered the removal from the register of Cases : T-51/93 Hartmut Krieger, T-196/93 Hans-Sönke 12 . T-70/93 Ernst-August Mohr, Grande ( BRD ) Hansen and T-214/93 Hans-Thomas Rathje v. Council of 13 . T-72/93 Artur Bußman, Rhauderfehn-Klostermoor the European Union . ( BRD ) 14 . T-73/93 Heinrich Hülsemann, Dinslaken ( BRD ) ») OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . 15 . T-75/93 Josefine Pfender, Biberach ( BRD ) No C 380/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Removal from the register of Case T-52/93 () Removal from the register of Case T-92/93 ( ) and ( 94/C 380/58 ) others ( 94/C 380/62 (Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European T-52/93 : Paul Plietker v. Council of the European Union Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case and Commission of the European Communities . T-92/93 and others : Martin Ludolf Petersen and other milk producers listed below v. Council of the European Union OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . and Commission of the European Communities .
Annex to the Order of the President of the Second Chamber of 31 August 1994 in Cases T-92/93 and others
Removal from the register of Case T-56/93 ( ) 1 . T-94/93 August Wilhelm Pauls , ( 94/C 380/59 ) Friedrich-Wilhelm-Lübke-Koog ( BRD )
(Language of the case: German) 2 . T-95/93 Johannes Iben, Risum-Lindholm ( BRD ) 3 . T-96/93 Ketel Prahl , Sande ( BRD ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 4 . T-101/93 Klaus und Hella Schmütz, Stocksee Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case ( BRD ) T-56/93 : Peter Jensen v. Council of the European Union . 5 . T-133/93 Nicolai Jacobsen, Risum-Lindholm ( BRD )
OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . 6 . T- 134/93 Hans Wulff, Pronstorf ( BRD ) 7 . T-141/93 Christian Heinrich, Emkendorf ( BRD ) 8 . T-148/93 Willi Tonn, Bebensee ( BRD ) 9 . T-150/93 Helmut Dohse , Arfrade ( BRD ) Removal from the register of Cases T-66/93 ( ), T-69/93 and T-l 15/93 10 . T-151/93 Ernst Brüggmann, Haale ( BRD ) 94/C 380/60 ) 11 . T- 1 64/93 Otto-Hermann Hildebrandt, Bad Schwartau ( BRD ) (Language of the case: German) 12 . T-165/93 Hans-Joachim Soost, By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Malente-Gremsmühlen ( BRD ) Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 13 . T-166/93 Otto Ohlrogge und Eva Ohlrogge geb . Blum Communities ordered the removal from the register of und Ottmar Ohlrogge, Koberg ( BRD ) Cases : T-66/93 Günter Backhaus , T-69/93 Manfred Mittwede and T-l 15/93 Uwe Lorentz v. Council of the 14 . T-167/93 Hans-Hermann Paasch, Neustadt-Rettin European Union and Commission of the European ( BRD ) und Ute Wendt, geb . Paasch, Quaal Communities . ( BRD ) 15 . T-168/93 Werner Anders, Damp ( BRD ) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . 16 . T- 172/93 Robert Hahn, Zarpen ( BRD ) 17 . T-173/93 Christian Grotmack, Luhnstedt ( BRD ) 18 . T-184/93 Joachim Haeger und Bernd Haeger, Bad Removal from the register of Case T-89/93 ( ) Oldesloe ( BRD ) ( 94/C 380/61 ) 19 . T-185/93 Herbert Freitag sen. und Herbert Freitag jun., Wulfsfelde ( BRD ) (Language of the case: German) 20 . T-205/93 Wolfgang Roden, Grabau ( BRD ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second 21 . T-2 15/93 Wolfgang Stammer, Bad Schwartau Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European ( BRD ) Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-89/93 : Heinrich Hartz v. Council of the European 22 . T-235/93 Helmi Vollert und Hans-Herbert Vollert, Union . Hamweddel ( BRD )
(!) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . (!) OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7 . 1990 . 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/29
Removal from the register of Case T-102/93 (*) Removal from the register of Case T-152/93 ( ) ( 94/C 380/63 ) ( 94/C 380/65 )
(Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European T-102/93 : Fritz-Reinhard Dreeßen v. Council of the Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case European Union and Commission of the European T-152/93 : Thomas Cornelius v. Council of the European Communities . Union and Commission of the European Communities .
(!) OJ No C 222, 6 . 9 . 1990 . (!) OJ No C 97, 16 . 4 . 1992 .
Removal from the register of Case T- 104/93 ( ) and others Removal from the register of Case T-170/93 (') ( 94/C 380/64 ( 94/C 380/66 )
(Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European T-104/93 and others : Dierk Hermann and other milk Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case producers listed below v. Council of the European Union T-170/93 and others : Peter Hanssen and other milk and Commission of the European Communities . producers listed below v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . Annex to the Order of the President of 31 August 1994 in Cases T-104/93 and others Annex to the Order of the President.of 31 August 1994 in Cases T-170/93 and others 1 . T-105/93 Ernst-August Callsen, Sörup-Dingholz ( BRD ) 1 . T-189/93 Christel Bald , Holzdorf ( BRD ) 2 . T-106/93 Karl-Heinrich Lorenzen, Nottfeld ( BRD ) 2 . T-l 90/93 Dieter Humke, Schwedeneck(BRD ) 3 . T-108/93 Walter Bruhn , Pommerby ( BRD ) 3 . T-218/93 Peter Schröder, Klein-Wittensee ( BRD ) 4 . T-110/93 Hans-Nicolay Görrissen, Wanderup 4 . T-233/93 Hans Heinemann, Lindau ( BRD ) ( BRD ) 5 . T-234/93 Willi Wischnewski , Ahlefeld ( BRD ) 5 . T-l 11/93 Gerhard Wilk, Hasselberg-Schwackendorf ( BRD ) OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 . 6 . T-l 12/93 Günther Blunck, Sörup ( BRD ) 7 . T-l 13/93 Vollert Asmussen, Gelting ( BRD ) 8 . T-137/93 Harald Schmidt, Holnis ( BRD ) 9 . T-154/93 Peter Rabe , Handewitt ( BRD ) Removal from the register of Case T- 174/93 ( ) 10 . T-155/93 Anne Thaysen, Munkwolstrup ( BRD ) 94/C 380/67 11 . T-l 8 1 /93 K. Hinz, Hochdonn ( BRD ) 12 . T-l 83/93 K. Nommensen, Leek ( BRD ) (Language of the case: German) 13 . T-2 11/93 R. Hargens , Friedhelm-Wilhelm-Lübke-Koog ( BRD ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European 14 . T-220/93 R. Jacobsen, Ausacker ( BRD ) Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case 15 . T-237/93 T. Schmidt, Süderbrarup ( BRD ) T- 174/93 : Christian Jessen v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . 16 . T-238/93 G. Prothmann, Wees ( BRD ) (!) OJ No C 270, 19 . 10 . 1992 . *) OJ No C 222 , 6 . 9 . 1990 . No C 380/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Removal from the register of Case T- 187/93 () and Removal from the register of Case T-241/93 ( ) T-l 88/93 ( 94/C 380/72 ( 94/C 380/68 (Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Communities ordered the removal from the register of T-241/93 : Timm Ehlers v. Council of the European Cases : T-l 87/93 Freiherr Ernst-Friedemann von Union . Miinchhausen and T-l 88/93 Uwe Knop v. Council of the European Union . (!) OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 . (!) OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Removal from the register of Case T-243/93 ( ) Removal from the register of Case T-195/93 ( ) ( 94/C 380/73 ( 94/C 380/69 (Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-243/93 : Klaus Morisse v. Council of the European Union T-195/93 : Hans Uwe Carstensen v. Council of the European and Commission of the European Communities . Union and Commission of the European Communities . H OJ No C 1 , 5 . 1 . 1993 . (!) OJ No C 270, 19 . 10 . 1992 .
Removal from the register of Case T-213/93 ( 1 ) Removal from the register of Case T-245/93 ( ) ( 94/C 380/70 ( 94/C 380/74 )
(Language of the case: German) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-213/93 : Gunter Janfien v. Council of the European Union . T-245/93 : Jochen Harders v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . H OJ No C 270 , 19 . 10 . 1992 . (!) OJ No C 46 , 18 . 2 . 1993 .
Removal from the register of Case T-223/93 ( ) ( 94/C 380/71 Removal from the register of Case T-248/93 ( ) and others (Language of the case: German) ( 94/C 380/75 ) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European (Language of the case: English) Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-223/93 : Walter Paustian v. Council of the European By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Union . Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case t 1 ) OJ No C 270, 19 . 10 . 1992 . T-248/93 and others : Peter Donald Blanchard and other milk producers listed below v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . 31 . 12 . 94 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 380/31
Annex to Order T-248/93 of 31 August 1994 Removal from the register of Case T-275/93 H List of removals ( 94/C 380/77 )
T-248/93 Peter Donald Blanchard (Language of the case: English) T-249/93 Anthony Edward Spencer Nuttall By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second T-250/93 Rodney Smith Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-251/93 William Thomas Greenhill and others T-275/93 : Peter Lloyd Symons v. Council of the European T-252/93 Michael Roy Ferkin Union and Commission of the European Communities , supported by the United Kingdom . T-253/93 Trevor Rex Hoddinott and another
T-254/93 Ian Peter Walker and others !) OJ No C 165 , 2 . 7 . 1992 . T-255/93 John James Holton T-256/93 Eric James Dyke T-257/93 David Edward Shewring and another Removal from the register of Case T-285/93 0 and others T-259/93 Kenneth Lisle Cameron ( 94/C 380/78 ) T-260/93 Thomas Ian Mitchell and another (Language of the case: English) T-262/93 W.M. Elliot & Son Limited
T-263/93 William Wallace By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European T-264/93 Arthur Graham Main Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-285/93 and others : Donald Murphy and other milk T-266/93 William John Sheppard Spokes and another producers listed below v. Council of the European Union T-267/93 Frederick Tom Chissell and others and Commission of the European Communities . T-268/93 Christopher George Dinning Annex to Order T-285/93 of 31 August 1994 T-269/93 Stanley Taylor and another List of cases T-270/93 Harold William Harcourt Jeffes and another T-328/93 Kathleen Cummins Carrigeen , Kilmacthomas , Co . Waterford T-271/93 Reginald Arthur John Hatherell and another T-329/93 James Shanahan Ashtown, Kilmacthomas , Co . T-272/93 Douglas Sims Leese and another Waterford T-276/93 Frank Stamper and another T-355/93 Philip Marry Cabragh, Tara , Co . Meath T-279/93 John Liddiard Farms Limited T-3 84/93 Donal O'Connor Shanaknock, Millstreet, Co . Cork 0 ) OJ No C 165 , 2 . 7 . 1992 . T-390/93 Monica Beegan Leckarrow, Co . Roscommon
OJ No C 158 , 10 . 6 . 1993 .
Removal from the register of Case T-274/93 ( x ) ( 94/C 380/76 ) Removal from the register of Case T-427/93 ( ) ( 94/C 380/79 ) (Language of the case: English) (Language of the case: English) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European T-274/93 : Sheila Hawkins v. Council of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Union and Commission of the European Communities, T-427/93 : John Edward Ward, David John Ward , Barbara supported by the United Kingdom . Ward and Margaret Ruth Lewis v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . ( J ) OJ No C 165 , 2 . 7 . 1992 . (!) OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 . No C 380/32 Official Journal of the European Communities 31 . 12 . 94
Removal from the register of Case T-428/93 (') Removal from the register of Case T-82/94 ( ) ( 94/C 380/80 ) ( 94/C 380/81 )
(Language of the case: English) (Language of the case: German) By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case T-428/93 : Victor Edmund Sidford, Phillip James Sidford, By order of 31 August 1994 the President of the Second Dorothy Anne Sidford, Martin Anthony Shallcross and Ann Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Jennifer Shallcross v. Council of the European Union and Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case Commission of the European Communities . T-82/94 : Helmut Fock v. Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities . (!) OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .-
(!) OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .