++ coco zz U)U) U)U)
v)v) F]F] FF FF MM zz cc =>a\ z 0r0r h9 rI]rI] Dl/ \-l\-l =z üü ä< -l-l Fi Fi 0.,.0.,. c{c{ )& )) f\ rrl F1F1 zz FF fr. zz
COURTOF JUSTICEOF THE EUROPEANCOMMUNITIES _ ANNUALREPORT 2OO1 zz
oD-AG-02-001-EN-CoD-AG-02-001-EN-C
aa zz ou, t-=
t! t! IJJ IJJ 55
X; !o EF ö t! t! t! t! qlql oo I ti.l i4s[ii4s[i lll COURTOF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEANCOMMUNITIES
ANNT]ALREPORT
200r
Synopsisof the Wbrk of the Coufi of Justice and the Court of First Instance of the EuropeanCommunities
Luxembourg 2002
http: I lwww.curia.eu.int Court of Justice of the European Communities L-2925 Luxembourg Telephone: (352) 4303-I Telex (Registry):2510 CURIA LU Telegraphic address:CURIA Fax: (352) 4303-2600 Fax (Pressand Infomation Division): (352) 4303-2500
Court of First Instance of the European Communities L-2925 Luxembourg Telephone: (352) 4303-l Fax: (352) 4303-2100
Completed on 15 January 2002
A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessedthrough the Europa server (http:lleuropa.eu.int).
Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002 rssN 1680-8304
@ European Communities, 2002 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium Table of Contents
page
Foreword,by Mr G.C. Rodriguezlglesias, President of the CourtofJustice ...... 7
Chapter I
The Court of Justiceof the EuropeanCommunities
A - Proceedingsof the Courtof Justicein 2001,by Mr G.C. RodriguezIglesias, President oftheCourtofJustice ....., 11
B - Compositionof the Courtof Justice 57
1. The Membersof the Courtof Justice 59
2. Orderof precedence 67
3. FormersMembers of the Courtof Justice 69
ChapterII
Courtof FirstInstance of theEuropean Communities
A - Proceedingsof the Courtof First Instancein 2001, by Mr Bo Vesterdorf,President of the Court of First Instance 75
B - Compositionof the Courtof First Instance 135 1. The Membersof the Court of First Instance 137
2. Changesin the compositionof the Court of First Instance . . . 143
3. Order of precedence. . . 145
4. Former Membersof the Court of First Instance 147
ChapterIII
Meetingsand Meetings visitsvisitsand
A - Official visits and functionsat the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instancein 2001 151
B StudyVisits to the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancein 2001 r57
C Formal sitting in 200I 159
D - Visits andparticipation in official functions in 2001 I6L
Chapter tV
Tablesand Tables statisticsstatisticsand
A - Proceedingsof the Court of Justice 165
1. Synopsisof thejudgments delivered by the Court of Justicein 2001 167
2. Synopsisof the othersdecisions of the Court of Justice which appearedin the 'Proceedings'in 2001 229 3. Statisticsof judicial activityof the Court of Justice 237
B - Proceedingsof the Court of First Instance 265
1. Synopsisof thejudgments delivered by the Court of First Instancein 2001 267
2. Synopsisof the othersdecisions of the Courtof First Instancewhich appearedin the 'Proceedings'in 2001 297
3. Statisticsof judicial activityof the Court of First Instance 299
ChapterV
GeneralInformntionInformntion General
A- Publicationsanddatabases... 32t
B - AbridgedOrganisational Chart of the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance 333
FOREWORD
by Mr G.C. RodriguezIglesias, President of the Courtof Justice
This annualreport contains, as is customary,figures showing the scaleof the activity of both courtsand an analysisof their decisionswhich brings to light the wide rangeof issuesdealt with.
The mere numberof the casesdecided over the past year cannotprovide an accuratemeasure of the level of judicial activity sincethose cases, and their degreeof complexity,differed so much; eachcase had to be dealt with in an appropriatemanner, at greateror lesserlength and in varyingdepth. Nonethe less,that figure is deservingof theclosest attention, inasmuch as a comparison with the numberof casesbrought makesit possibleto measurethe impact which the year gone by has had on the number of pending casesand, therefore,on the durationofproceedings.
The statisticsset out at the end of the report showthat the level of activity of both courtswas consistently high in 2001, substantiallycomparable to that of the previousyear. The numberof casesbrought to a close was 434 at the court of Justiceand 340 at the court of First Instance,while new cases brought numbered504 and 345 respectively. The averageduration of proceedingswas broadlyconstant for the two years.
Apart from figures, this report containsa sunrmaryof the most important developmentsin the case-law,demonstrating the rangeof mattersdealt with in the variousfields of Communitvlaw.
With regard to its administrativefunctioning, the Court of Justicehas, in particular,been mindful of mattersrelating to its translationservice, which mustwork smoothlyif proceedingsare to be conductedat a reasonablespeed and case-lawis to be rapidly availableto the public. The court has thus consideredthe consequbncesfor translationof the forthcomingenlargement andthe difficulties which will arisefrom the increasein languagecombinations and the foreseeablegrowth in the numberof cases. Thoseconcerns have led the Court to embarkupon a vast computerproject designed to put in place a multilingualtool, adaptedto judicial work, integratingall the stagesin the life of documents,from inception to publication. This ambitiousproject, a prototypeof which has atreadybeen developed to the satisfactionof users, shouldbe broughtto a conclusionin 2002.
In addition,the Court, mindful of the institutionalframework within which it works, beganin 2001, in conjunctionwith the Court of First Instance,to addressthe future entry into force of the Treaty of Nice. Their reflections have related in particular to the sharingbetween them of jurisdiction over direct actionsand to the settingup of a judicial panel for casesbrought by EuropeanUnion officials.
It is in that context,looking towardsthe future, that the Court embarkson the year of its 50th anniversary. Chapter I
The Courtof Justice of the EuropeünCommunities
A- Proceedings of the Court of Justice in 200I" by Mr G.C. RodriguezIglesias, President of the Court of Justice
1. This part of the annualreport is intendedto give a clearpicture of the activity of the Court of Justiceof the EuropeanCommunities over the year which hasjust ended.It doesnot cover Opinionsof the AdvocatesGeneral, which areof undeniableimportance for a detailedunderstanding of the issues at stakein certaincases but would increaseconsiderably the lengthof a report which mustprovide a brief descriptionof the cases.
Apart from a rapid statisticalappraisal (section 2) anda surveyof application of the new proceduralinstruments in the courseof the year (section3), this part of the report summarisesthe main developmentsin the case-lawin 2001,, which are arransedas follows: jurisdictionof the Court and procedure(section 4); generalprinciples and constitutionaland institutionalcases (section 5); free moVementof goods (section6); freedomto provide services(section 7); right of establishment (section8); competitionrules (section 9); Stateaid (section10); harmonisation oflaws (section11); social law (sectionI2);law concerningexternal relations (section13); environmental law (section14); transportpolicy (section 15); tax law (section16); commonagricultural policy (section17); andlaw relatingto Communityofficials (section 18).
A selectionof this kind is necessarilytimited. It includesonly 53 of the 397 judgmentsand orderspronounced by the Court during the period in question and refersonly to their essentialpoints. The full texts of thosedecisions, of all the other judgmentsand orders and of the Opinions of the Advocates Generalare available,in all the official Communitylanguages, on the Court's internetsite (www.curia.eu.int).In order to avoidany confusionand to assist the reader,this report refers,unless otherwise indicated, to the numberingof EC Treaty articlesestablished by the Treaty of Amsterdam.
2. As regardsstatistics, the Courtbrought 398 cases to a close.Of those cases,244 were dealt with by judgments,one case concernedan opinion deliveredunder Article 300(6)EC and153 cases gave rise to orders.Although thesefigures show a certaindecrease compared with the previousyear (463 casesbrought to a close), they are slightly abovethe averagefor the years
1111 1997-99(approximately 375 casesbrought to a close).On the other hand,the number ofnumber ofnew casesnew arriving cases arrivingat theat Courtthe hasCourt stayedhas at stayed theat samethe level same (504(504level in 2001, 503 in 2000). Consequently,the number of casespending has increasedto 839 (net figure, takingaccount of joinder), comparedwith 803 in 2000.
The durationofproceedings remained constant so far as concernsreferences for forpreliminary rulingspreliminary rulingsand directand actionsdirect (approximatelyactions 22 (approximately 22and 23and 23monthsmonths respectively). However,respectively). However,the theaverage timeaverage timetaken totaken todeal dealwith withappeals waswasappeals reducedfrom 19 monthsin 2000 to L6 monthsin 2001.
As regardsthe distributionof casesbetween the Court in plenarysession and Chambersof Judges,the former disposedof one case in five (in 2000 it disposedof onecase in four), while the remainingjudgments and orderswere pronouncedby Chambersof five Judges(60Vo of cases)or of three Judges (almostone casein four).
For further informationwith regardto the statisticsfor the 2001judicial year, referenceshould be madeto Chapter[V of this report.
3. Somegeneral trends can alreadybe identifiedfrom the use madeby the Courtthe ofCourt ofcertain newcertain proceduralnew instrumenfsprocedural which instrumenfs werewhich insertedwere into inserted intoitsits Rules of Procedureby amendmentsadopted on 16 May and 28 November 2000. '
The CourtThe hasCourt madehas frequent made use frequent ofuse ofits increasedits ability increased abilityto giveto itsgive decisionits onon decision referencesfor a preliminary ruling by meansof a simplified procedure,in accordancewith accordance withArticle Article104(3) of104(3) ofthe theRules ofRules ofProcedure (previouslyProcedure thatthat(previously 'manifestly 'manifestly procedurecould procedure becould usedbe onlyused whereonly awhere questiona was question was identical' totoidentical' a questionon which the Court had alreadyruled). The Court may now resort to the simplified procedurein three situations,namely where the question referredto it is identicalto a questionon which it hasalready ruled, wherethe answerto sucha questionmay be clearly deducedfrom existingcase-law or where thewhere theanswer toanswer tothe thequestion admitsquestion ofadmits ofno noreasonable doubt. reasonable doubt.In Insuchsuch
A codifiedversion of the Rulesof Procedureof the Court of Justicewas publishedin the fficial Journal of the EuropeanCommunities of I Februaryz0/0-l (OJ 2001 C 34, p. 1). Seealso the amendmentsof 3 April 2001(OJ 2001 L 119,p. 1).
I2 circurnstances,the Court mustfirst inform the court or tribunalwhich referred the questionto it of its intentionsand hear any observationssubmitted by the interestedparties. The casemay thenbe broughtto a closeby reasonedorder, thus enabling, where it appearsjustified, a ruling to be given without presentationof oral argumentand delivery of a written Opinion by the AdvocateGeneral.
Two ordersmade in 2001illustrate the two very differentuses which the Court may make of the simplified procedurewhere the questionreferred to it is identicalto a questionon which it has already ruled. First, the simplified proceduresometimes enables an answerto be given to the nationalcourt very quickly. Thus, in its order of 19 June2001 in JoinedCases C-9l01 to C-12/01 Monnier and Others (not publishedin the ECR), the Court reiteratedits previouscase-law a mere five monthsor so after the nationalcourt had made the reference.Second, the simplifiedprocedure is sometimesused to bring to a speedyclose cases which havebeen stayed pending the outcomeof a 'test' case.For example,in its order of 12 July 2001 in CaseC-256199 Hung (not publishedin the ECR), the Court repliedto questionswhich it hadbeen asked more than two yearsearlier, in April 1999.The explanationfor the lengthof time takenis that the Court had stayedproceedings pending the conclusionof Kaur fridgmentof 20 February2001 in CaseC-192199 l200ll ECR I-1237), a caseidentical to Hung. The nationalcourt, althoughduly informedof the 'test' judgmentdelivered in the case,did not withdrawits questions,which led the Court to makean order with the samecontent.
The Court has also madegetting on for 10 ordersin circumstanceswhere it consideredthat the answerto the questionssubmitted could be clearlydeduced from existing case-law.Experience has shown that this power provesvery useful when the Court intendsto confirm that - eventhough there may be slightdifferences in the factualor legalcontext - generalsolutions previously reachedby it remainvalid. Thus, the Court held that, sinceit had previously found that the provisions of the Agreementon Trade-RelatedAspects of IntellectualProperty Rights (TRIPs), which is in Annex lC to the Agreement establishingthe World Trade Organisation(WTO), are not suchas to create rights on which individualsmay rely directly beforethe courtsby virtue of Communitylaw, the sameapplies, for the samereasons, to the provisionsof the L994 GeneralAgreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), which is also annexed to the WTO Agreement (order in Case C-307199 OGT Fruchthandelsges ellschaft [200 U ECR I-3 159).
1313 In 2001 the Court had recourse for the first time to the expeditedor acceleratedprocedure accelerated availableprocedure toavailable toit itin inthe theevent eventof ofparticular particularurgencyurgency (expeditedprocedure (expeditedunder procedure Articleunder Article62a of62a ofthe Rulesthe ofRules ofProcedure in Procedure inrespectrespect ofdirect actions)or exceptionalurgency (accelerated procedure under Article 104ain respectof referencesfor a preliminaryruling).
The casein questionconcerned a referencefrom a Netherlandscourt relating to theto policythe pursuedpolicy by pursued bythe Communitythe inCommunity inconnection with connection witheradication of eradication ofthethe foot-and-mouthepidemic. foot-and-mouth Theepidemic. nationalThe courtnational madecourt themade referencethe on reference 27on AprilApril27 2001and the Court of Justicewas able to provideit with an answeron 12 July 2001(Case C-189/01 Jippes and Others[2001] ECR I-5689; seealso section 17 below).
In all the othercases where use of the expeditedor acceleratedprocedure was sought(five referencesfor a preliminaryruling and two appeals),the request was answeredin the negative.The referencesfor a preliminary ruling most oftenconcerned disputes relating to the awardof public contracts.It is difficult at the moment to draw generallessons from thesefew cases.It appears, however, however,that thatthe the Court Courtintends intendsto touse usethe theexpedited andexpedited andacceleratedaccelerated procedureswith cautiononly, whereit appearsproperly justified in the event of particularor exceptionalurgency, in order to avoidexcessive disruption to other caseswhose handling could be slowed down by a proliferation of expeditedor acceleratedproceedings. That implies in particular that, with regardto referencesfor a preliminaryruling, the acceleratedprocedure is not designedto replacethe obligationofreferring courtsto grant litigantsinterim judicial protectionwhere it is felt necessary.
It Itmay alsomay be also notedbe thatnoted thethat Courtthe makesCourt regular, makes albeitregular, relativelyalbeit restrained,restrained,relatively use of the possibility availableto it under Article 104(5) of its Rules of Procedureof Procedure ofrequesting clarification requesting fromclarification afrom nationala court national whichcourt haswhich referredreferredhas questionsto it for a preliminary ruling. Recourseto this power is liable to lengthenthe time requiredto dealwith cases,but sometimesproves invaluable in enablingthe Court to assesscorrectly the legalproblems which are raised. Whenthe Court seekssuch clarification, it ensuresthat the partiesto the main proceedingsand the otherinterested parties are given the opportunityto submit written or oral observationson the responseof the nationalcourt.
Finally, with a view to facilitatingand accelerating the conductof proceedings before it, the Court will endeavourin the courseof 2002 to issuepractice directions for litigants, in accordancewith Article l25a of the Rules of Procedure.
T4T4 4. With regard to the jurisdiction of the Court and procedure,several interestingdevelopments will be noted,concerning the preliminaryreference procedure(4.1), the appealprocedure (4.2) andthe interimrelief procedure (4.3\.
4.L. In CaseC-239199 Nachi Europe [2001] ECR I-1197,the case-law laid down in CaseC-188192 TWD TextilwerkeDeggendorf [1,994] ECR I-833 was applied in the field of anti-dumpingmeasures. The questionat issue was whetheran undertakingwhich failed to bring an action for annulmentof an anti-dumpingduty affectingit could nonethe lessplead that the antidumping duty wasinvalid before a nationalcourt. The anti-dumpingregulation had been annulledso far as concernsthe anti-dumpingduties affecting the undertakings which broughtan action for annulment.The Court held that an undertaking which had a right of action before the Court of First Instanceto seekthe annulmentof the anti-dumpingduty but which did not exerciseit cannotplead the invalidity of that antidumpingduty beforea nationalcourt.
In CaseC-1199 Kofisa halia B0AII ECR I-207, the Court'sjurisdiction was contestedin relation to a disputewhere the Communitylegislation did not applydirectly but the applicationof Communitylaw resultedfrom the fact that nationallegislation conformed to Communitylaw for the purposeof resolving an internalmatter. The Court confirmedthe case-lawlaid down by it in Case 'a C-L30197Giloy $9971 ECR I-4291, accordingto which referenceby a nationalcourt can be rejectedonly if it appearsthat the procedurelaid down by Article 1234ECI hasbeen misused and a ruling from the Court elicitedby meansof a contriveddispute, or it is obviousthat Communitylaw cannot apply, either directly or indirectly, to the circumstancesof the casereferred to the Court' (paragraph22). The Court assertedits jurisdiction to give a ruling in disputesof the kind at issuewhere a questionhas been referred to it.
4.2. In its judgment in Joined Cases C4A2l99 P and C-308i99P Commissionand Francev TFI l200ll ECR I-5603, the Court interpretedthe conditionsunder which an appealmay be broughtagainst a judgmentof the Court of First Instance.The Commissionand the FrenchRepublic had brought appealsagainst the judgmentof the Court of First Instancein CaseT-17196 TFI v Commissiont19991 ECR II-1757in so far as it declaredTFL's acrion to be admissible.At first instance,that undertakinghad brought an action againsta failure on the part of the Commissionto reach a decisionunder Article 86 EC. During the courseof thoseproceedings, the Commissionsent a letter to TFI which constitutedthe definition of a position.The Court of First Instancetherefore decided, after holdingthe actionadmissible, that there
1515 was nowas longerno anylonger needany to need toadjudicate the adjudicate claimthe forclaim fora declarationa of declaration offailure totofailure act pursuantto Article 86 EC. In its judgment,the Court of Justiceheld that the groundsset out by the Court of First Instancewere sufficientto establish that the actionceased to haveany purposeonce the Commissionexpressed its position.Since those grounds were suchas to justify the decisionof the Court of ofFirst FirstInstance, anyInstance, errorsany errorsin inthe thegrounds ofgrounds ofthe judgmentthe underjudgment appealappealunder 'no 'no concerningthe concerning admissibilitythe ofadmissibility ofthe claimthe ofclaim offailure tofailure actto hadact hadeffect oneffect thetheon operativepart of thatjudgment'. Accordingly,the appealswere dismissed.
4.3. 4.3.So farSo faras concernsas theconcerns interimthe interimrelief procedure,relief itprocedure, itis isworth worthdrawingdrawing attention to the order of 14 December 2001 in Case C404l01 P(R) CommissionvEuroalliages and Others(not yet publishedin the ECR). Here, the Courtthe ofCourt ofJustice annulled Justice an annulled orderan oforder ofthe Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst InstanceFirst which, Instance which,inin concluding thatconcluding thatpecuniary losspecuniary wasloss wasirreparable, reliedirreparable, reliedon onthe thefact factthat thatitsits reparationat reparation aat latera stagelater in stage inan actionan foraction fordamages was damages uncertain,was givenuncertain, thethegiven wide discretionwhich the Commissionhad in the casein point.
The CourtThe ofCourt ofJustice held Justice inheld inits orderits thatorder thethat uncertaintythe as uncertainty toas toreparation ofof reparation pecuniary losspecuniary inloss inany actionany foraction fordamages cannot damages becannot beregarded inregarded initself itselfas aaas circumstancecapable circumstanceof capable ofestablishing that establishing suchthat asuch lossa isloss irreparableis within irreparable withinthethe meaningof the Court's case-law.Proceedings for interim relief are not intendedas intended aas replacementa for replacement forsuch an such actionan foraction fordamages in damages orderin toorder eliminateeliminateto that uncertainty.Their purposeis solelyto ensurethe full effectivenessof the definitivedecision to be reachedin the main proceedings,in this instancean action foraction forannulment, to annulment, whichto thewhich applicationthe for application forinterim reliefinterim reliefis anis adjunct.adjunct.an That conclusionThat was conclusion notwas affectednot by affected bythe link,the link,established by established bythe orderthe underunderorder appeal,between the wide discretionwhich the Commissionhad in the casein point pointand theand theuncertainty asuncertainty toas towhether anywhether anyaction foraction fordamages would damages wouldbebe successful.If that criterion were appliedsystematically, the irreparabilityof the lossthe wouldloss dependwould on depend theon characteristicsthe of characteristics ofthe contestedthe measure contestedand measure notnotand on the applicant'sparticular circumstances.
5. 5. Among theAmong casesthe relating cases torelating togeneral prtnciples general ofprtnciples ofCommunity law Community laworor with constitutionalwith or constitutional institutiornlor institutiornlimplications, the implications, mostthe importantmost conc.ern importantthethe conc.ern conceptof citizenshipof the Union, the legalbasis for measuresof secondary law lawadopted byadopted bythe theCommunity institutionsCommunity andinstitutions theand principlethe principleof ofaccess toto access documentsof documents ofthe Communitythe institutions.CommunityA institutions. judgmentA concerning judgment observanceobservance concerning by theby Courtthe ofCourt ofAuditors ofAuditors ofthe rightthe rightto toa hearing a shouldhearingalso should bealso noted.noted. be
16 5.1. The Court deliveredtwo judgmentswhich containclarification of the effect of the conceptof citizenshipof the Union, introducedinto Community law by the MaastrichtTreaty.
CaseC-184199 Grzelc4tk [2001] ECR I-6193 concernedthe positionof a Frenchnational who was studyingin Belgiumand had obtainedentitlement to 'minimex' the (a minimum subsistenceallowance paid by the BelgianState). Paymentof that allowanceto him was stoppedbecause Belgian legislation madeits grantconditional, in the caseof nationalsof otherMember States, on their falling within the scopeof Regulation(EEC) No 1612168,2 althoughthat condition did not apply to Belgian nationals.In view of that disparity in treatment,the national tribunal before which Mr Gruelczykchallenged the decisionstopping payment referred a questionto the Court for a preliminary ruling. It inquired whether Articles t2 EC and l7 EC, relating to the principlesof non-discriminationand of citizenshipof the Union respectively, precludedthe disparityin treatment.
In its judgment,the Court found first of all that the treatmentaccorded to Mr Grzelczyk constituteddiscrimination solely on the ground of nationality becausethe only bar to grant of the minimex was the fact that he was not a Belgiannational. The Court thencontinued as follows: 'Within the sphereof applicationof the Treaty, suchdiscrimination is, in principle, prohibitedby Article t12 ECl. In the present case, Article $2 ECI must be read in conjunctionwith the provisionsof the Treaty concerningcitizenship of the Union in order to determineits sphereof application'(paragraph 30). It then statedthat 'Union citizenshipis destinedto be the fundamentalstatus of nationalsof the Member States,enabling those who find themselvesin the same situation to enjoy the same treatmentin law irrespectiveof their nationality, subject to such exceptionsas are expressly provided for' (paragraph31).
Having set out thoseprinciples, the Court consideredCase 1,97186Brown [1988] ECR 3205, in which it had held that assistancegiven to sfudentsfor their maintenanceand training fell in principleoutside the scopeof the Treaty. It decidedthat certainchanges subsequent to Brown, in particularthe fact that the Maastricht Treaty introducedcitizenship of the Union and a chapter
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English SpecialEdition, 1968 (tr), p. 47).
I7 devoted todevoted toeducation intoeducation intothe theEC ECTreaty, Treaty,and andthe theadoption ofadoption ofDirectiveDirective 93l96lEEC,3meant that thereis no longeranything 'to suggestthat students who arewho citizensare ofcitizens ofthe Union,the Union,when theywhen movethey tomove toanother Member another StateMembertoto State studythere, lose the rights which the Treaty conferson citizensof the Union' (paragraph35). It then consideredthe possibleimpact of the limitationsand conditionsplaced by Directive 93196on the right of residenceof students;it interpretedthe interpreted directivethe asdirective allowingas theallowing hostthe Memberhost StateMemberto State totake thetake viewviewthe that a studentwho has recourseto social assistanceno longer fulfils the conditionsof his right of residenceand thusto takemeasures to withdraw his 'in residencepermit or not to renewit. However,the Court addedthat no case may suchmay measuressuch become measuresthe become automaticthe consequence automatic of consequence ofa student a who student iswho isaa nationalof anotherMember State having recourse to the host MemberState's socialassistance system' (paragraph 43).
In Kaur, cited above,the Court had to answerquestions referred to it for a preliminary ruling which related to thq relevant criteria for determining whethera personhas the nationalityof a Member Statefor the purposesof Article ArticleL7 L7EC ECand andto tothe theeffect effectof ofthe thedeclarations made declarations bymade bythe theUnitedUnited Kingdomin 1972and 1982concerning the conceptof a nationalof a Member State.So far as concernsthe first point, the Court recalledits judgment in CaseC-369190 Micheletti and OthersU992lECR[-4239, accordingto which 'under internationallaw, it is for eachMember State, having due regardto Communitylaw, to lay down the conditionsfor the acquisitionand loss of nationality'(paragraph 19). As to the effectof the declarations,the Court held that thethat the1972 declaration,1972 which declaration, whichwas madewas bymade bythe Unitedthe KingdomUnited whenKingdom ititwhen accededto acceded tothe theEuropean Communities European inCommunities inorder orderto toclariff clariffthe categoriesthe ofof categories citizensto be regardedas its nationalsfor the purposesof Communitylaw, must bemust takenbe into taken considerationinto as consideration anas interpretative an instrument interpretativefor instrument determiningdeterminingfor the personsthe to persons towhom thewhom Treatythe applies.Treaty Theapplies. The1982 declaration1982 is declaration ismerely ananmerely adaptationof adaptation ofthe declarationthe made declarationin made in1972.1972.
5.2. As regardsthe casesretating to legaläasl'swhich are to be noted,one concernsthe concerns legalthe basislegal forbasis forconclusion of conclusion ofan internationalan Convention internationaland Convention thetheand other relatesother torelates tothe thelegal legalbasis forbasis forthe thedirective ondirective onthe legalthe legalprotection ofofprotection biotechnologicalinventions.
Council Directive 93l96lEEC of 29 October L993 on the right of residencefor students (OJ 1993L 3Ll , p. 59).
18 In CaseC-36198 Spain v Council[200U ECP.I-779,the Courtdismissed an actionbrought by the Kingdomof Spainfor annulmentof a Council decision concerningthe conclusionof the Conventionon cooperationfor the protection and sustainableuse of the river Danube,a adoptedon the basis of Article 175(1)EC. In theapplicant's submission, the decision should have been based exclusively on Article L75(2) EC, under which the Council is to act unanimously,because it approveda Conventionrelating to the managementof water resourcesin the basinof the river Danube.
The Court upheld the choice of legal basis and dismissedthe action. It determinedfirst of all the respectivescope of Article 175(1)EC and Article 175(2)EC, concludingthat the conceptof 'managementof water resources' referredto in the latter 'doesnot cover everymeasure concerned with water, but coversonly measuresconcerning the regulationof the useof waterand the managementof water in its quantitativeaspects' (paragraph55). It then recalledthat where a measurepursues a twofold purposeor has a twofold component,it must be founded on the basis required by the main or predominantpurpose or component.The Court deducedfrom a detailed examinationof the internationalConvention that its 'primary purpose... is the protectionand improvementof the quality of the watersof the catchmentarea of the river Danube,although it also refers, albeit incidentally,to the use of thosewaters and their managementin its quantitativeaspects'. Accordingly, it concludedthat the legal basisadopted by the Councilwas correct.
In the secondcase (udgment of 9 October2001 in CaseC-377198 Netherlands v Parliamentand Council,not yet publishedin the ECR), the Kingdomof the Netherlandssought the annulmentof Directive 98l44lEC on the legal protectionof biotechnologicalinventions. 5 This directivewas adoptedon the basis of Article 95 EC and its purposeis to require the Member Statesto protectbiotechnological inventions through their patentlaws. The Netherlands put forward a numberof pleas, including the allegedlyincorrect choice of Article 95 EC as the legal basisfor the directive, breachof the principle of subsidiarityand breach of the fundamentalright to respectfor humandignity.
Council Decision 97l825lEC of 24 November L997 concerningthe conclusionof ttre Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainableuse of the river Danube (OJ 1997L 342, p. 18)"
Directive 98144/ECof the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protectionof biotechnologicalinventions (OJ 1998 L213, p. 13).
19 Its action was dismissed.So far as concernsthe plea allegingthat the legal basischosen was incorrect, the Court recalledits previouscase-law according to which Article 95 EC may be usedas a legal basiswhere it is necessaryto prevent theprevent thelikely likelyemergence of emergence offuture futureobstacles to obstacles totrade traderesulting resultingfromfrom multifariousdevelopment of nationallaws (seethe judgment in CaseC-376198 Germarryv Parliamentand Councrl[2000] ECR I-8419,paragraph 86). It held that thatthat condition that was condition metwas here.met Withhere. regardWith to regard theto argumentthe that argument thethat directivedirectivethe should have been founded on Articles L57 EC and 163 EC, relating to industrialpolicy and researchpolicy respectively,the Court observedthat 'is harmonisationof the legislationof the MemberStates not an incidentalor subsidiaryobjective of the Directive but is its essentialpurpose' (paragraph 28). Therefore,Article 95 EC constitutedthe correctlegal basis.The Court held with regardto the plea concerningthe principle of subsidiaritythat the objectivepursued by the directive could not have been achievedby action taken bytaken bythe Memberthe StatesMemberalone. States Inalone. Inview viewof ofthe effectsthe ofeffects ofthe protectionthe ofofprotection biotechnologicalinventions biotechnologicalon inventions intra-Communityon trade, intra-Community thetrade, objectivethe couldobjective bebecould better achievedbetter by achieved theby Community.the Furthermore,Community. the Furthermore, directivethe gavedirective sufficientsufficientgave reasonswith regardto the principle of proportionality.
As toAs theto pleathe concerningplea fundamental concerningprinciples, fundamental theprinciples, Court the statedCourt that stated itthat itis forfor is it, 'in its reviewof the compatibilityof actsof the institutionswith the general principles ofprinciples ofCommunity law,Community law,to toensure that ensure thethat fundamentalthe right fundamental rightto tohumanhuman dignity and integrity is observed' (paragraph70). It noted the various provisions ofprovisions ofthe directivethe anddirective concludedand that concluded thethat latterthe latterframes theframes thelaw lawonon patents inpatents ina amanner sufficientlymanner sufficientlyrigorous rigorousto toensure thatensure thatthe thehuman bodybodyhuman effectively remainseffectivelyunavailable remains and unavailable inalienableand and inalienable thatand human that dignity human dignityis thusthusis safeguarded
5.3. So far as concernstransparency and the principle of accessto documentsof documents ofthe theinstitutions, theinstitutions, judgmentthe ofjudgment of6 6December 2O0lDecember 2O0lin inCaseCase C-353199P Councilv Hautala(not yet publishedin the ECR) shouldbe noted. This judgmentwas delivered on an appealbrought by the Council againstthe judgmentof the Court of First Instancein CaseT-I4198 Hautala v Council t19991ECR II-2489 which had annulleda Council decisionrefusing Ms Hautala accessHautalato access toa areport reportof ofthe theCouncil WorkingCouncil WorkingGroup onGroup onConventionalConventional Arms ArmsExports onExports theon groundthe thatground itsthat itsdisclosure would disclosure underminewould the undermine publicpublicthe interest.The interest.judgment The of judgment theof Courtthe ofCourt Justiceof upheld Justiceboth upheld theboth outcomethe reachedreached outcome and theand approachthe adopted approachby adopted theby Courtthe ofFirstCourt ofFirstInstance, accordingly Instance, rejectingrejecting accordingly all allthe pleasthe raisedpleas byraised bythe Council.the Council.The judgmentThe underlinedjudgment thatunderlined DecisionDecisionthat
2020 93l73llBc 6 on public accessto Councildocuments derives from Declaration No 17 of the Final Act of the Treaty on EuropeanUnion, on the right of accessto information. That decisionthus does not concernonly accessto documentsas such,but also accessto the informationcontained in them. The Court statedthat 'the principle of proportionalityalso requiresthe Councilto considerpartial accessto a documentwhich includesitems of information whosedisclosure would endangerone of the interestsprotected by Article 4(1) of Decision931731'(paragraph 27).In determiningthis appeal, the Courtdid not considerit necessaryto decidewhether the Court of First Instancehad been wrong in relying on the existenceof a 'principle of the right to information' (paragraph 31). It founded its reasoning simply on an interpretationof Decision93/731,in the light of its objectiveand the principle of proportionality.
5.4. In CaseC-3I5/99 P Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors [200U ECR l-528I, the companyIsmeri Europa brought an appealagainst the judgment of the Court of First Instancein Case T-277/97 Ismeri Europa v Court of Auditors U9991 ECR II-1825, in which the Court of First Instancehad dismissedits applicationfor damagesfor the lossallegedly suffered by it as a resultof criticismsmade against it by the Court of Auditorsin SpecialReport No 1/96. 7 In its appeal,Ismeri Europaput forward six pleasfor annulment, all rejectedby the Court of Justicewhich upheldthe judgment of the Court of First Instance.
Of thosepleas, that relatingto infringementof the right to a hearingmerits particularattention. The Court observedthat this right is a generalprinciple of law whoseobservance is ensuredby it andwhich appliesto any procedure that may resultin a decisionby a Communityinstitution perceptibly affecting a person'sinterests. Although the adoptionand publicationof reportsof the Court of Auditors are not decisionsdirectly affectingthe rights of persons mentionedin suchreports, they are capableof havingconsequences for those personssuch that thoseconcerned must be able to make observationson the points in the reports which refer to them by name, before the reports are definitivelydrawn up. However,the Court found that, in the presentcase, it followed from the flagrantand seriousfailure to observethe rules of sound
Council Decision 93l73IlEC of 20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents(OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43).
SpecialReport No 1/96 of the Court of Auditors on the MED programmes,adopted on 30 May 1996(OJ 1996C 240, p. 1).
2I managementthat management ifthat ifIsmeri EuropaIsmeri hadEuropa beenhad givenbeen agiven hearinga thathearing wouldthat wouldnotnot have alteredhave the altered viewthe viewtaken bytaken bythe Courtthe ofCourt ofAuditors asAuditors toas tothe expediencythe ofof expediency naming thatnaming companythat incompany inits itsreport. report.The TheCourt Courtalso heldalso heldthat therethat maythere maybebe specificcircumstances, such as the gravity of the factsor the risk of confusion liable to harm the interestsof third parties,allowing the Court of Auditors to mentionby mention nameby in name inits reportsits personsreports who persons inwho inprinciple areprinciple notare subjectnot to subject toitsits supervision,provided that suchpersons have the right to a hearing.In sucha case itcase itis isfor forthe theCommunity judicatureCommunity judicatureto toassess whether assess thewhether thenaming ofofnaming personsis persons necessaryis and necessary proportionateand to proportionate theto objectivethe pursued objectiveby pursued publicationpublicationby of the report.
6. CaseC-379198 PreussenElelara l200ll ECR I-2099relates to thefree movementof goods,while also having a Stateaid dimensionwhich will be dealtwith in section10 below. In this case,a Germancourt wasunsure as to the compatibilitywith Communitylaw of Germanlegislation which obliged electricity supplyelectricityundertakings supply to undertakings purchaseto the purchase electricitythe producedelectricityin produced theirin areaareatheir of ofsupply fromsupply renewablefrom energy renewable sourcesenergy and sources toand payto forpay forit itin inaccordance withwith accordance a statutorya minimum statutory price. minimum price.The nationalThe courtnational soughtcourt a sought preliminarya rulingpreliminary rulingonon the interpretationof Articles 28 EC and 87 EC.
So far as concernsthe free movementof goods,the Court found first of all thatthe Germanlegislation constituted, at leastpotentially, an obstacleto intra- Communitytrade. However, it thenstated that, 'in order to determinewhether sucha purchaseobligation is neverthelesscompatible with Article [28 EC], accountmust be taken, first, of the aim of the provision in question,and, second,of the particular featuresof the electricity market' (paragraph72). Sucha provisionis designedto protectthe environmentand the healthand life of humans,of animals humans,and animals plants.and Inplants. Inaddition, theaddition, Courtthe observedCourt that observed thethat naturenaturethe of electricity is such that, onceit has been allowedinto the transmissionor distributionsystem, it is difficult to determineits origin and in particularthe sourceof energyfrom which it wasproduced. It alsoreferred to a proposalfor a adirective directivein inwhich whichthe theCommission Commissionhad hadtaken takenthe theview viewthat thatthethe implementationin eachMember State of a systemof certificatesof origin for electricityproduced from renewablesources, capable of beingthe subjectof mutual mutualrecognition, wasrecognition, wasessential inessential inorder orderto tomake trademake intrade inthat thattype typeofof electricityboth reliableand possible in practice.The Court concludedfrom all thoseconsiderations those that, considerations that,'in 'inthe currentthe statecurrentof state ofCommunity lawCommunity concerningconcerninglaw the electricity market', the Germanlegislation was not incompatiblewith Article 28 EC (paragraph81).
2222 In Case C-405198Gourmet International Products [2001] ECR I-1795, the Court ruled that the Treaty provisionsrelating to the free movementof goods andthe freedomto provideseryices do not precludea prohibition,imposed by swedishlegislation, on the advertisingof alcoholicbeverages in periodicals, unlessit is apparentthat the protectionof public health againstthe harmful effects of alcohol can be ensuredby measureshaving less effect on intra- Communitytrade. The Court had to decidewhether the case-lawlaid down in JoinedCases C-267/9I andC-268/91 Keck and Mithouard [1993] ECR I-6097 was applicablein the case in point. The Court stated that, if national provisionsrestricting or prohibitingcertain selling arrangements are to avoid beingcaught by Article 28 EC, they must not be of sucha kind as to prevent accessto the market by productsfrom anotherMember Stateor to impede accessany more than they impedethe accessof domesticproducts. It held that, in the case of productslike alcoholicbeverages, the consumptionof which is linked to traditionalsocial practices and to local habitsand customs, a prohibition of all advertising directed at consumersin the form of advertisementsin the pressis liableto impedeaccess to themarket by products from otherMember States more than it impedesaccess by domesticproducts.
The Court's interpretationof the rules concerningthe freedom to provide serviceswas broadly similar. In concludingthat therewas an obstacleto that freedom,the Court took accountof the internationalnature of the advertisins market.
7. So far as concernsthe freedom to provide services,Case C-368/98 Vqnbraekeland Others [2001] ECR I-5363 and Case C-L57/99 Smitsand Peerbooms[200U ECR I-5473 shouldbe mentioned.These cases follow on from thejudgments in CaseC-I20195 Decker 119981 ECR I-1831and Case C-158/96KohlllI99Sl ECR I-1931,where the Court had explained the effects of the provisionsrelating to the free movementof goodsand the freedomto provide serviceswith regardto the reimbursementby nationalsocial security schemesof medicalcosts incurred in anotherMember State.
In Vanbraekeland Others,a Belgiannational had soughtauthorisation from her sicknessinsurance fund to undergosurgery in France.Authorisation was initially refused, but the Belgian court subsequentlyordered the sickness insurancefund to reimbursethe coststo her. The questionarose as to whether thosecosts had to be reimbursedin accordancewith the Frenchscheme or in accordancewith the Belgianscheme and whethera limitation on the amount
2323 reimbursedwas compatible with Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. 8 The questionalso arose with regardto Article 49EC (freedomto provideservices).
The Court statedfirst of all that, in accordancewith Article 22(l)(c) ot RegulationNo 1408/71,the legislationof the Member State in which the treatmentis given is to be applied as regardsthe basison which costs are borne, whileborne, whilethe competentthe institution competent remainsinstitution responsibleremains for responsible forsubsequentlysubsequently reimbursingthe reimbursing institutionthe ofinstitution ofthe placethe ofplace ofstay, asstay, providedas forprovided forin inRegulationRegulation No 1408/71.Since the Belgianreimbursement scale was more favourablethan the scalethe applicable scale in applicable France,in the France, Courtthe thenCourt observedthen that observed thethat regulationthe doesdoes regulation not havenot thehave effectthe ofeffect ofpreventing orpreventing orrequiring additionalrequiring reimbursementadditional whenwhen reimbursement the systemin the Statein which the personconcerned is insured is more beneficial(a principlewhich follows ftom KohII, cited above, pamgraph27). The Court finally foundedits analysison the provisionsgoverning the freedom to provide services.Within this framework, the Court held that national legislationwhich doesnot guaranteea personcovered by its socialinstnance schemewho scheme whohas beenhas authorisedbeen toauthorised toreceive hospitalreceive treatmenthospital intreatment inanotheranother Member StateMembera State levela oflevel ofpayment equivalent payment to equivalent tothat tothat towhich hewhich wouldhe havehavewould been entitledbeen ifentitled ifhe hadhe receivedhad hospitalreceived treatmenthospital intreatment inthe theMember StateMember ininState whichhe wasinsured entails a restrictionof freedomto provideservices. That restrictionis notjustified by overridingreasons in the generalinterest linked to tothe thefinancial financialbalance ofbalance ofa asocial socialsecurity securitysystem, tosystem, tothe theobjective objectiveofof maintaininga balancedmedical and hospital service open to all, or to the need to maintainto treatmentmaintain capacity treatmentor capacity ormedical competencemedical on competence nationalon territory.territory.national
In SmirsIn and Smirs Peerbooms,and Fxo Peerbooms, NetherlandsFxo nationals Netherlandswho nationals had who receivedhad medicalmedical received treatment abroadtreatment soughtabroad reimbursementsought of reimbursement ofthe themedical medicalcosts fromcosts from theirtheir respectivesickness insurance funds, underthe socialsecurity system in force in inthe theNetherlands. TheyNetherlands. Theywere wererefused refuseda arefund, refund,in inaccordance withwithaccordance Netherlandssocial Netherlands securitysocial legislation,security onlegislation, onthe thegrounds thatgrounds satisfactorythat andand satisfactory adequatetreatment adequatewas treatment availablewas inavailable inthe Netherlands,the that Netherlands, thethat specificthe clinicalclinicalspecific treatrnentprovided treatrnent abroadprovided hadabroad nohad no additional advantage,additional that advantage, thatthere wasthere nonowas medical necessitymedical justiffing necessity justiffingthe treatmentthe and treatment that,and owingthat, toowing tothe experimentalexperimental the nature natureof ofthe thetreatment andtreatment andthe theabsence ofabsence ofscientific scientificevidence ofevidence ofitsits effectiveness,it was not regardedas normal within the professionalcircles concerned.
CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 140817Lof 14 June l97L on the applicationof social securityschemes to employedpersons, to self-employedpersons and to membersof their familiesmoving within the Community,as amended and updated by CouncilRegulation (EEC)No 2001/83of 2 June1983 (OJ 1933L230, p. 6).
2424 The Court stated first of all that the provision of hospital servicesdoes constitutethe provision of serviceswithin the meaningof Article 49 EC. Legislationwhich makesreimbursement of costssubject to prior authorisation and providesfor such reimbursementto be refusedin certaincircumstances thusconstitutes a barrierto freedomto provideservices. So far asconcerns the possibilityof justiffing that barrier, the Court examinedthe samegrounds of justification as in the judgment in Vanbraekeland Others. It held that the requirementof prior authorisationfor accessto hospitaltreatment provided in anotherMember State is 'both necessaryand reasonable'(paragraph 80), in order to safeguardthe planning and accessibilityof hospital treatmentin a MemberState. However, the conditionsimposed by the Netherlandslegislation for obtainingauthorisation are compatiblewith Communitylaw only in so far as the requirementfor the treatmentto be regardedas 'normal' is interpreted by referenceto internationalmedical science. Furthermore, authorisation can be refusedon the ground of lack of medicalnecessity only if the sameor equally effective treatment can be obtained without undue delay at an establishmenthaving a contractualarrangement with the insured person's sicknessinsurance fund.
8. So far as concernsthe right of establishment,Joined Cases C-397/98 and C-410/98Metallgesellschafr and Others [2001] ECF. I-I727 should be noted.Here, the Court ruled on the interpretationof freedomof establishment in relationto UnitedKingdom legislation.The legislationafforded companies residentin the United Kingdom the possibilityof benefitingfrom a taxation regimewhich allowedthem to pay dividendsto their parentcompany without having to pay advancecorporation tax where the parent companywas also residentin the United Kingdom but deniedthem that possibility where the parent companyhad its seat in anotherMember State.The Court held that suchlegislation is contraryto Article 43 EC andcannot be justified by reasons of public interest. Furthermore, Community law requires that resident subsidiariesand their non-residentparent companies should have an effective legal remedyin order to obtainreimbursement or reparationof the losswhich they have sustainedas a result of the advancepayment of tax by the subsidiaries.In accordancewith well-establishedcase-law, the rules relating to that legal remedy must not render practically impossibleor excessively difficult the exerciseof rights conferredby Communitylaw. The Court also held that it is contrary to Communitylaw for a nationalcourt to refuseor reducea claim broughtbefore it by a residentsubsidiary and its non-resident parentcompany for reimbursementor reparationof the financialloss which theyhave suffered as a consequenceofthe advancepayment ofcorporationtax
2525 by bythe subsidiary,the on subsidiary, theon solethe groundsole thatground theythat didthey didnot makenot usemake ofuse ofthe legallegalthe remediesavailable to them to challengethe decisionsof the tax authorities, wherenational law deniedresident subsidiaries and their non-residentparent companiesthe benefitof the taxationregime in question.
In CaseC-108/96 Mac Quenand Others t200U ECR I-837, the Court was requiredto rule on the interpretationof Article 43 EC in relationto a judicial interpretationof national legislation which had the effect of prohibiting opticiansfrom carryingout certainoptical examinations. It held thatArticle 43 doesnot in principlepreclude such a prohibition,which could be justified by reasonsrelating to the protectionof public health.
9. With regardto competitionlaw, somedevelopments in the case-law havearisen from referencesfor a preliminary ruling (9.1), othersfrom direct actionsor appeals(9.2).
g.L. CaseC-453 199 Courage and CrehanI2OOL]ECR I-6297 concerns the questionwhether questiona whether partya toparty ato contracta whichcontract iswhich contraryis tocontrary Articleto Article81 EC81 cancanEC rely relyon onthe thebreach ofbreach ofthat thatprovision provisionbefore beforea anational nationalcourt courtto toobtainobtain compensationfor losswhich resultsfrom the unlawful contractualclause.
The Court foundedits judgment on its case-lawrelating to the nature and effectof Communitylaw, recallingCase26/62Van Gend entroos [1963] ECR 1, Case6/64 Costa 11964lECR 585 and JoinedCases C-6l90 and C-9190 Francovichand Others [199U ECR I-5357, ild on the consideratisnthat 'a Article 81 constitutes fundamentalprovision which is essentialfor the accomplishmentof accomplishment theof tasksthe entrusted tasks to entrusted theto Comrnunitythe and, Comrnunity inand, particular,in forforparticular, the functioningthe offunctioning ofthe internalthe market'internal (paragraphmarket' 20).20). (paragraph
The TheCourt Courtdeduced fromdeduced fromthe the nature natureof ofthe theCommunity legalCommunity legalorder, order,thethe particularly importantparticularlyposition important ofposition ofthe competitionthe rules competition inrules thatin orderthat andorder otherotherand more morespecific considerationsspecific that considerations that'any 'anyindividual individualcan canrely relyon on a abreach ofofbreach Article t8l(1) ECI before a national court even where he is a parly to a contract thatcontract isthat isliable toliable torestrict orrestrict ordistort competitiondistort within competition withinthe meaningthe ofof meaning that provision' (paragraph24).That right entails,inter alia, the right to seek compensationfor compensation forthe lossthe caused.loss Accordingly, caused. thereAccordingly, cannotthere be cannot anybe absoluteabsoluteany bar tobar anto actionan foraction fordamages being damages broughtbeing bybrought oneby ofone ofthe partiesthe toparties toa contractcontract a which violates Article 81(1) EC. Moreover, the bringing of such actions strengthensthe strengthens workingthe ofworking ofthe Communitythe competitionCommunityrules competition andrules discouragesdiscouragesand agreementsor agreements practices,or which practices, arewhich frequentlyare covert, frequently thatcovert, arethat liableare toliable restrictrestrictto
2626 or distort competition.However, if it is establishedthat the party relying on the breachof Article 81 EC bearssignificant responsibility for the distortion of competition,Community law does not preclude a rule of national law barringhim from relying on his own unlawful actionsto obtaindamages.
In its judgmentof 25 October2001 in CaseC-475 199 Ambulanz Glöckner (not yet publishedin the ECR), the Court interpretedArticles 81 EC, 82 EC and 86 EC. Questionswere referred for a preliminaryruling in connectionwith a disputebetween an undertakingand a Germanadministrative body concerning a refusalto renewauthorisation for the provisionof patienttransport services by ambulance.The nationalcourt wasuncertain whether reasons related to the pursuit of a task of generaleconomic interest were sufficient to justiff the exclusionof all competitionfor that type of services.
The Court found first of all that the Germanlegislation conferred on medical aid organisationsa specialor exclusiveright within the meaningof Article 86(1) EC, which was thereforeapplicable in the casein point. With regardto Article 86(1) EC in conjunctionwith Article 82 EC, the Court found, in its analysisof the relevantmarket, that patienttransport was a servicedistinct from that of emergencytransport, and that the land of Rhineland-Palatinate (Germany)constituted a substantialpart of the common market, given its surfacearea and population. The Courtnevertheless left it to the nationalcourt to determinethe geographicalextent of the marketand whethera dominant positionwas occupied. According to the Court, therewas potentially an abuse of a dominantposition in that the legislationof the Land resewedto certain medicalaid organisationsan ancillarytransport activity which couldbe carried on by independentoperators. Finally, the Court concludedthat such legislation wasjustified under Article 86(2) EC providedthat it did not bar the grant of an authorisationto independentoperators where the authorisedmedical aid organisationswere unableto satisff demandexisting in the area of medical transportservices.
9.2. So far as concernsdirect actionsand appeals, two judgmentswill be noted, one concerningair traffic and the other concerningthe conceptof Community interest in the context of RegulationNo 17 e rclating to implementationof the competitionrules.
Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962 (First Regulation implementing Articles t8U and [82] of the Treaty) (OJ, EnglishSpecial Edition 1959-1962,p.87).
2727 In Case C-L63199Portugal v Commission[200t1 ECR I-2613, the Court dismissedan dismissed actionan broughtaction bybrought bythe Portuguesethe Republic Portuguese forRepublic forannulment of annulment ofaa Commissiondecision relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article 86 EC. t0 In Inthe thecontested decision, contested thedecision, theCommission hadCommission hadfound foundthat thatthe thesystem ofofsystem discountson discounts landingon charges landingdifferentiated charges according differentiatedto according theto originthe oforigin theof flight,flight,the provided for by Portugueselegislation, was incompatiblewith Article 86(1) EC, in conjunctionwith Article 82 EC. The PortugueseRepublic pleaded, inter alia, breachof the principleof proportionality.However, the Court held thatthe decisionwas not disproportionate,having regard to the wide discretion enjoyedby the Commissionunder Article 86(3)EC. The PortugueseRepublic also contendedalso that contended therethat had there beenhad no been abuseno of abuse aof dominanta position dominant withposition regardregardwith to discountsgranted on the basisof the numberof landings.The Court stated, however,that the systemof discountsappeared to favour certainairlines, in the presentcase the nationalairlines.
In InCase CaseC-449198 P C-449198 PIECC IECCv v Commission QOOIICommission QOOIIECR ECR I-3875 I-3875and andCaseCase C-450198P IECCv Commissiont200U ECR I-3947,the Court dismissedtwo appealsin the competitionfield. One of the pleas raised merits particular attention. Theattention. Theappellant maintainedappellant thatmaintained thatthe theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance hadhadInstance committed ancommitted erroran errorof oflaw lawwith withregard toregard tothe thescope, thescope, definitionthe anddefinition thetheand applicationof Article 3 of RegulationNo 17 rr and the legal conceptof Communityinterest.
The Court of Justiceupheld the judgmentof the Court of First Instance.It statedthat, stated inthat, thein contextthe ofcontext ofcompetition policy, competition policy,the Commissionthe is Commission entitledis totoentitled give differing degreesof priority to the complaintsbrought before it. The discretion whichdiscretion itwhich itthus enjoysthus inenjoys inthat regardthat doesregardnot does dependnot on depend theon morethe orormore less advancedstage of the investigationof a case,which is only one of the circumstancesthat circumstances thethat Commissionthe is Commission requiredis torequired taketo intotake consideration.into TheThe consideration. Court stated,Court however, stated, that however, thethat Courtthe ofCourt Firstof InstanceFirst did Instance notdid confernot unlimitedunlimitedconfer discretion on the Commission,because the Court of First Instancedrew attentionto attention tothe existencethe and existence scopeand of scope ofthe reviewthe ofreview ofthe legalitythe oflegality ofa decisiondecision a rejecting arejecting complaint.a Thecomplaint. CourtThe ofCourt ofJustice found Justice thatfound thethat Commission,the in Commission, inthethe exerciseof exercise ofits discretion,its mustdiscretion, takemust intotake considerationinto all consideration allthe relevantthe mattersmattersrelevant of oflaw lawand ofand offact factin inorder toorder todecide whatdecide actionwhat toaction totake intake inresponse to response toaa
CommissionDecision l999ll99lBc of 10 February 1999 relatingto a proceeding pursuantto Article 90 of theEC Treaty (now Article 86 EC) (IV/35.703 - Portuguese airports)(oJ 1999L 69,p. 31). Citedin footnote9 above.
28 complaint,particularly those which thecomplainant brings to its attention.The number of criteria of assessmentshould not be limited, nor should the Commissionbe requiredto haverecourse exclusively to certaincriteria.
10. In the field of State aid, the most significantcases related to the conceptof 'State resources',to the Commission'spowers in the monitoring procedureand to the relationshipbetween State aid and public service obligationsimposed on undertakingsby Staterules.
The factsof PreussenElehrahavebeen noted in section6 of this review. From the point of view of Stateaid, the main issuewas whetherlegislation such as the Germanlegislation could be categorisedas State aid. The Courtpointed out 'advantages that the conceptof Stateaid has beendefined by it as covering 'the granteddirectly or indirectly throughState resources'. It then statedthat distinctionmade in [Article 87(1) EC] between"aid grantedby a Member State" and aid granted "tlrrough Stateresources" does not signiff that all advantagesgranted by a State, whetherfinanced through Stateresources or not, constituteaid but is intendedmerely to bring within that definition both advantageswhich are granteddirectly by the Stateand thosegranted by a public or privatebody designatedor establishedby the State'(paragraph 58). In the casein point, the Court found that the obligationimposed on private electricitysupply undertakings to purchaseelectricity produced from renewable energysources at fixed minimumprices did not involve any direct or indirect transfer of State resourcesto undertakingswhich produce that type of electricity.Accordingly, there was no Stateaid for the purposesof Article 87 EC. The Court also rejectedthe Commission'sargument, put forward in the alternative,that in order to preservethe effectivenessof the Stateaid rules, readin conjunctionwith Article 10 EC, it is necessaryfor the conceptof State aid to be interpretedin sucha way as to includesupport measures which are decidedupon by the Statebut financedby private undertakings.The Court held that the Treaty articlesconcerning State aid refer directly to measures emanatingfrom the MemberStates. Article 10 EC cannotbe usedto extend the scopeof Article 87 EC to conductby Statesthat doesnot fall within it.
In CaseC4A0/99 ltaly v Commission(udgment of 9 October2001, not yet publishedin the ECR), the Italian Republichad soughtthe annulmentof a Commissiondecision to initiatethe procedureunder Article 88(2)EC in so far as that decision ruled on the suspensionof the aid in question. The Commissionasked the Court to declarethe action inadmissible.It submitted that the suspensionof the aid flowed directly from Article 88 EC rather than
2929 from its decision.That decisionwas only a preparatorymeasure and therefore not opennot toopen toan action an foraction forannulment.annulment.
In its judgment, the Court dismissedthe objection of inadmissibilityput forward by the Commission.It underlinedthe differencesbetween the set of rules applicableto existing aid and that applicableto new aid. So far as consernsaid in the course of implementationthe payment of which is continuing andcontinuing whichand which the Memberthe StateMember regardsState asregards existingas existingaid, aaid, acontrarycontrary classificationas new aid, even if provisional,adopted by the Commissionin a decisionto initiate the procedureunder Article 88(2) EC in relationto that aid, has independentlegal effects. The fact that, unlike the case of an injunctionaddressed to a MemberState to suspendaid, it is for the Member Stateand, in appropriatecases, the economicoperators concerned to draw the appropriateconsequences from the decisionthemselves, does not affect the scope of its legal effects. The Court accordingly declared the action admissible.It also held the actionadnnissible, for similar reasons,in relation to the measureswhich did not constituteaid in the Italian Government's submissionbut whose suspensionhad none the less been ordered by the contesteddecision.
CaseC-53/00 Ferring (udgment of 22 November2001, not yet publishedin the ECR)the concernedECR) the concerned relationshipthe between relationshipttre between State ttre aid State aidrules andrules publicpublicand serviceobligations imposed on undertakingsby Staterules. Here, the French companyFerring company soughtFerring the sought reimbursementthe of reimbursement oftax whichtax itwhich ithad beenhad obligedobligedbeen to pay to the Agence centraledes organismesde s6curit6sociale (central agencyfor socialsecurity bodies) by way of a direct salestax on medicines. Ferring Ferringcontended thatcontended thatrestricting restrictingthe thetax taxto tosales salesby bypharmaceuticalpharmaceutical laboratoriesamounted to a grant of Stateaid to wholesaledistributors and infringedthe obligationto give advancenotice laid down in Article 88(3) EC.
So farSo as far concems as whether concemsthe whether measurethe at measure issueat was issue towas beto classifiedbe as classified aid,as thetheaid, Court Courtstated thatstated thethat the fact factthat undertakingsthat are undertakings treatedare differentlytreated differentlydoes notnotdoes automaticallyimply the existenceof an advantagefor the pulposesof Article 87 87EC. EC.There Thereis isno no such advantagesuch where advantage thewhere thedifference indifference intreatment isistreatment justified by reasonsrelating to the logic of the system.It accordinglyheld that the setthe of set taxof rulestax atrules issueat amounted issue to amounted Stateto aid State toaid wholesaleto distributors wholesaleonlyonly distributors to tothe extentthe thatextent thethat advantagethe in advantage innot beingnot assessed being to assessed tothe taxthe exceededtax thethe exceeded additionalcosts that they bore in dischargingthe public serviceobligations imposedon them by nationallaw. The Court then consideredthe effect of Article 86(2) EC in the eventthat the tax constitutedState aid. It observed that, ifthat, ifthe advantagethe for advantage wholesalefor distributors wholesalein distributors notin beingnot assessed being to assessedtheto taxtaxthe
30 exceededthe additionalcosts imposed on them, that advantage,to the extent that it exceededthe additionalcosts, could not be regardedas necessaryto enablethem to carry out the particular tasks assignedto them, within the meaningof that provision.
Ll.. In the field of harmonisationof laws, caseson the law of trade marlcs will be noted,concerning both the directiverelating to trademarks (11.1) and the regulationon the Communitytrade mark (11.2). Attentionmust also be drawnto a caseon public procurementlaw (11.3)and to a caseon liability for defectiveproducts (1 1.4).
11.1. CaseC-517199 Merz & KreII fiudgmentof 4 October2001, not yet publishedin the ECR) concerneda questionreferred for a preliminaryruling as to the interpretationof Article 3 of DirectiveS9|I}4|EEC relatingto trade marks. 12In this case,Merz & Krell had filed an applicationfor registration of the word mark Bravo in respectof writing implements.The applicationwas refusedby the DeutschesPatent- und Markenamt(German Patent and Trade Mark Office) on the ground that the word Bravo is purely a term of praise, devoid of any distinctive character. The national court referred for a preliminaryruling a question,divided into two parts, on the interpretationof Directive891L04.
As regardsthe first part of the question,the Court held, in the light of the objectivesof the directive, that 'it is throughthe use madeof it that such a signacquires the distinctive character which is a prerequisitefor its registration ... However,whether a sign doeshave the capacityto distinguishas a result of the usemade of it can only be assessedin relationto the goodsor services coveredby it' (paragraph30). The Court thereforeruled that Article 3(1Xd) of the directivemust be interpretedas 'only precludingregistration of a trade mark wherethe signsor indicationsof which themark is exclusivelycomposed have becomecustomary in the current languageor in the bona fide and establishedpractices ofthe tradeto designatethe goodsor servicesin respect of whichregistration of thatmark is sought'(paragraph 31).
The second part of the question was designed to ascertain whether Article 3(1Xd) of Directive 89/104precludes registration of a trade mark
First Council Directive 89/104/EEC of 21 December 1988 to approximatethe laws of the Member Statesrelating to trade marks (OJ 1989 L 40, p. 1).
3131 where the signsor indicationsare advertisingslogans, indications of quality or orincentives to incentives topurchase even purchase thougheven theythough dothey notdo describenot the describe propertiesthe ororproperties the characteristicsthe of characteristics ofthe goodsthe andgoods services.and The services. CourtThe heldCourt that,held wherethat, thethewhere signs or indications concernedhave become customary, it is of little consequencethat they areused as advertising slogans, indications ofquality or incitementsto purchasethe goodsor services.However, registration of a trade mark ismark notis excludednot by excluded thatby merethat fact.mere Itfact. Itis foris forthe nationalthe court national tocourt determinedetermineto whether whetherthe thesigns signsor orindications haveindications becomehave customarybecome incustomary inthe thecurrentcurrent languageor language inor inthe bonathe fidebona andfide establishedand practices establishedof practices ofthe tradethe totrade designatedesignateto the goodsthe or goods orservices covered servicesby covered bythe mark.mark.the
In its judgmentof 20 November2001 in JoinedCases C-414199 to C4l6l99 Zino Davidoff and Levi Strauss,not yet publishedin the ECR, the Court clarified the interpretationof Directive 89110413with regard to exhaustion of ofthe rightsthe conferredrights by conferred bya tradea mark. trade Themark. caseThe concerned case the concerned marketingthe ininmarketing the Unitedthe KingdomUnited ofKingdom ofproducts previously products placedpreviously onplaced theon marketthe outsidemarket thetheoutside EuropeanEconomic Area (EEA). Article 7(1) of the directiveprovides that a trade marktrade mark'shall 'shallnot notentitle theentitle proprietorthe proprietorto toprohibit prohibitits itsuse in use inrelation totorelation goodswhich goods havewhich beenhave put been onput theon marketthe inmarket inthe Communitythe underCommunity thatunder tradetradethat mark by the proprietoror with his consent'.
The Court clarified a number of points, of which the following should be noted.First, consentto the marketingof goodsmay also be implied, whereit is to be inferred from factsand circumstancesprior to, simultaneouswith or subsequentto subsequent tothe placingthe ofplacing ofthe goodsthe ongoods theon marketthe outsidemarket theoutside EEAthe EEAwhichwhich unequivocallydemonstrate that the proprietor has renouncedhis right to opposemarketing of the goods within the EEA. However, applying that criterion, criterion,consentcannot consent becannot inferredbe frominferred fromthe factthe thatfact thethat proprietorthe ofproprietor ofthethe trade marktrade hasmark nothas communicatednot his communicated oppositionhis to opposition toall allsubsequent purchasers,purchasers, subsequent from thefrom factthe thatfact thethat goodsthe carry goods nocarry warningno ofwarning theof prohibitionthe onprohibition theiron beingbeingtheir placedon placed theon marketthe withinmarket thewithin EEAthe orEEA fromor thefrom particularthe featuresparticularof features theof lawlawthe governing thegoverning contractthe bycontract bywhich ownershipwhich of ownership ofthe productsthe bearingproducts thebearing tradetradethe mark hasbeen transferred.
L1.2. In CaseC-383199 P Procter & Gamblev OHIM [2001] ECR I-6251, relating torelating toRegulation (EC)Regulation (EC)No No40/94, 40/94,14the 14 theCourt Courtannulled onannulled onappeal thetheappeal
l3 Cited in the precedingfootnote. l4 CouncilRegulation (EC) No 40/94of 20 December1993 on the Communitytrade mark (OJ 1994L 11,p. 1).
32 judgmentof the Court of First Instancein CaseT-163198 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (BABY-DRY)$9991ECR II-2383 and the decisionby the OHIM (Office for Harmonisationin the InternalMarket), upheld by the Court of First Instance,to refuseto register 'BABY-DRY' as a Communitytrade mark in respectof disposablediapers made out of paperor celluloseand diapers made out of textile. The Court of Justiceessentially held that 'the purposeof the prohibition of registrationof purely descriptivesigns or indicationsas trade marks is ... to prevent registrationas trade marks of signs or indications which, becausethey are no different from the usualway of designatingthe relevantgoods or servicesor their characteristics,could not fulfil the function of identiffing the undertakingthat marketsthem and are thus devoid of the distinctivecharacter needed for that function'(paragraph 37). The Court added 'as that, regardstrade marks composedof words ... descriptivenessmust be determinednot only in relation to each word taken separatelybut also in relationto the whole which they form. Any perceptibledifference between the combinationof words submittedfor registrationand the terms used in the cofirmonparlance of the relevantclass of consumersto designatethe goodsor servicesor their essentialcharacteristics is apt to conferdistinctive character on the word combinationenabling it to be registeredas a trade mark' (paragrapha0). Applying thoseprinciples to the casein point, the Court found that word combinationslike 'BABY-DRY' cannotbe regardedas exhibiting, as a whole, descriptivecharacter; they are lexical inventionsbestowing distinctivepower on the mark so formed and may not be refusedregistration underArticle 7(1Xc) of RegulationNo 40/94.
11.3. With regard to public procurement law, the judgment in Case C-399/98Ordine degli Architetti and Others[2001] ECR I-5409must be given a brief mention. This judgment concernedthe interpretationof Directive 93l37lEEC on public works contracts.15 The Court ruled that the directive precludesnational urban developmentlegislation under which, without the procedureslaid down in the directivebeing applied,the holder of a building permit or approveddevelopment plan may executeinfrastructure works directly, by way of total or partial set-offagainst the contributionpayable in respectof the grant of the permit, in caseswhere the valueof that work is the same as or exceedsthe ceiling fixed by the directive. In reaching that conclusion,the Court found that the direct executionof infrastructureworks in the circumstancesprovided for by the Italian legislation on urban
Council Directive93/37IEEC of l{June 1993concerning the coordinationof procedures for the award of public works contracts(OI 1993L 199, p. 54).
33 developmentconstitutes a 'public works contract' within the meaningof the directive. The necessaryconditions for concludingthat there is a public contract (acontract (acontracting authority,contracting theauthority, executionthe ofexecution ofworks worksor orof ofa awork, work,thethe existenceof a contract for pecuniary interest concluded in writing, the tenderer'sstatus as contractor)were met here. In paragraphs57 to 97 of the judgment, the Court provided clarificationconcerning those elements of the conceptof a public contract.Municipal authorities are under an obligationto comply withcomply withthe proceduresthe laid procedures downlaid indown inthe directivethe wheneverdirective they whenever awardawardthey a acontract whichcontract whichis isfound foundto tobe bea a public publicworks workscontract. contract.However, However,thethe directiveis still givenfull effectif the nationallegislation allows the municipal authoritiesto requirethe developerholding the buildingpermit to carry out the work workcontracted forcontracted forin inaccordance with accordance withthe theprocedures laidprocedures laiddown downin inthethe directive.
LL.4. In Case C-203199Veedfald [200U ECR I-3569, the Court gave a ruling on the interpretationof Directive 85l374lEEC t6 which concerns liability for defectiveproducts. Here, it wasnecessary, in particular,to clariff the conditionsfor exemptionfrom liability which are laid down in Article 7 of the directive. Mr Veedfald was due to undergo a kidney transplant operation.After operation. Aftera kidneya hadkidney beenhad removedbeen from removed fromthe donor,the itdonor, itwas preparedprepared was for fortransplantation through transplantation flushingthrough withflushing witha fluid.a fluid.The fluid The fluidwas defectivewas andand defective a kidneya arterykidney becameartery blocked becameduring blocked theduring flushingthe process,flushingmaking process, themaking kidneykidneythe unusablefor unusable forany transplant.any The transplant. CourtThe ruledCourt thatruled thethat exemptionthe in exemption Articlein Article7(a)7(a) was inapplicableto the facts of the case: a defectiveproduct is put into circulationwhen it is usedduring the provisionof a specificmedical service, consistingin preparinga humanorgan for transplantation,and the damage causedto caused theto organthe resultsorgan fromresults thatfrom preparatorythat treatrnent. preparatoryIt treatrnent. Italso statedalso thatthat stated the exemptionfrom liability wherean activity hasno economicpurpose does not extendnot to extend theto casethe of case ofa defective a product defective whichproduct haswhich been has manufactured been andand manufactured usedin the courseof a medicalservice, even if that serviceis financedentirely from publicfrom fundspublic and funds theand patientthe ispatient notis requirednot torequired payto anypay consideration.consideration.any
L2. So far asconcerns Community social law, it is necessaryto recordone case on equal treatmentfor men and women (12.L), four casesrelating to
Council Directive 85/374|EECof 25 July 1985 on the approximationof the laws, regulationsand administrativeprovisions of the MemberStates concerning liability for defectiveproducts (OJ 1985L2L0, p.29).
34 social security (1,2.2)and two sasesconcerning the interpretationof two differentemployment-related directives (12.3) .
12.L. CaseC-366199 Griesmnr (udgment of 29 November2001, not yet publishedin the ECR) concernedthe interpretationof Article 141 EC, which dealswith equaltreatment for men andwomen, in relationto lirench civil and military retirementpension rules which awardedonly femalecivil servantsa servicecredit for eachof their children.
In the first part of its judgment, the Court appliedthe criteria laid down in Case C-7l93 Beune tl994l ECR I-4471 in order to establishwhether the Frenchretirement scheme for civil servantsconstitutes pay within the meaning of Article 141EC. Accordingto thatjudgment,the only decisivecriterion is whether the pensionis paid to the worker by reasonof the employment relationshipbetween him:urd his former employer,that is to say,the criterion of employment.The Court concludedthat Article 141 applies: since the 'determined pensionis directly by length of serviceand ... its amount is calculatedon the basis of the salary which the personconcerned received during his or her final six months at work', it satisfiesthe criterion of employment.
In the secondpart of the judgment,the Court found a differencein treatment on groundsof sex.The Court statedthat the credit is linked to the bringing-up of children.It then observedthat 'the situationsof a male civil servantand a femalecivil servantrnay be comparableas regardthe bringing-upof children' (paragraph56). However, the French schemedoes not permit a male civil servantto receivethe credit, evenif he can prove that he assumedthe task of bringing up his children.Accordingly, the schemeintroduces a differencein treatmenton groundsof sexwhich cannotbe justified under Article 6(3) of the Agreementon SocialPolicy, a provisionwhich permitsthe MemberStates to help womenconduct their professionallife on an equalfooting with men. Such a credit merelygrants female civil servantswho are mothersa servicecredit at the dateof their retirement,without providing a remedyfor the problems which they may encounterin the courseof their career.
35 L2.2. Case C-215199Jauch [200U ECR I-1901 concernedfrontier-zone workers, in the casein point a Germannational who had worked in Austria. The matterThe atmatter atissue wasissue whetherwas thewhether carethe allowancecare whichallowance whichhe hehad claimedclaimedhad constituteda constituted speciala non-contributory special benefit non-contributorywithin benefit thewithin meaningthe of meaning Articleof Article10a10a of RegulationNo 1408i71,r7 whose grant MemberStates could makesubject to a residencecondition. The allowancewas included on the list of specialnon- contributory benefitscontributory whichbenefits formswhich Annexforms IIaAnnex IIato tothat regulation.that Theregulation. AustrianAustrianThe Governmentcontended Governmentthat contended itsthat inclusionits oninclusion theon listthe listwas sufficientwas forsufficient forit itto tobebe classifiedas sucha benefit.
Facedwith that argument,the Court recalledthat RegulationNo 1408/71was adoptedto give effect to Article 42EC and that it must be interpretedin the light of the objective of that provision, which is to establishthe greatest possible possiblefreedom freedomof ofmovement formovement formigrant migrantworkers. workers.That Thatfreedom freedomofof movementwould movement notwould benot attainedbe if, attained if,as aas consequencea of consequence ofthe exercisethe of exercise oftheirtheir right rightto tofreedom offreedom ofmovement, workersmovement, workerswere wereto tolose losethe the social socialsecuritysecurity advantageswhich advantages representwhich the represent counterpartthe of counterpart ofcontributions whichcontributions whichthey havehavethey paid. Accordingly, provisions which derogatefrom the principle of the exportabilityof socialsecurity benefits must be interpretedstricfly. This means that, in additionto being listed in Annex IIa to RegulationNo 1140/71,those benefitsmust benefits bemust bothbe specialboth and special non-contributory.non-contributory.and
The questionThe whether questionthe whether allowancethe at allowance issueat could issue becould regardedbe as regarded specialas hadhad special already been decided in Case C-160196Molenaar [1998] ECR I-843, according accordingto towhich whichit itconstinrted aconstinrted asickness benefit.sickness benefit.Furthermore, Furthermore,thethe allowance wasallowance contributorywas sincecontributory theresince was there anwas indirectan linkindirect linkbetween itbetween itandand sicknessinsurance contributions. Accordingly, the Court ruled that the allowance mustallowance bemust beprovided providedirrespective ofirrespective ofthe theMember StateMember inState in which whichaa personreliant on care, who satisfiesthe other conditionsfor receipt of the benefit,is resident.
In Inits judgmentits injudgment inCase C-33199Case Fahmi C-33199 andFahmi Esmorisand Cerdeiro-PinedoEsmoris AmadoAmado Cerdeiro-Pinedo 120011ECR I-2415, the Court gavea preliminaryruling on the interpretation of Articles 39 EC and 43 EC, RegulationNo 1408171,r8 RegulationNo
l7 Cited in footnote8 above,as amendedand updatedby Council Regulation(EC) No LI8/97of 2 December1996 (OJ 1997L 28, p. 1).
l8 Cited in footnote8 above,as amendedand updatedby CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 2001183of 2 June 1983(OJ 1983L 230, p. 6), as amendedby CouncilRegulation (EEC)No 1247/92of 30 April 1992(OJ 1992L 136,p. 1).
36 1612168reand the EEC-MoroccoCooperation Agreement. 20 Mr Fahmi, a Moroccan national, and Mrs Esmoris Cerdeiro-PinedoAmado, a Spanish national,had workedin the Netherlands.After becomingunfit for work, they returned to Morocco and Spain respectivelyand continuedto receive an allowancefor incapacityfor work. By virtue of thatallowance, they wereboth alsoentitled to allowancesfor dependentchildren. However, they were refused paymentof thoseallowances, on the groundthat in eachcase their child had alreadyreached the ageof 18 years,following a decisionby the Netherlands legislaturegradually to abolishthe allowancesfrom that age and to replace them with studyfinance paid directly to students.The questionsasked by the nationalcourt were essentiallydesigned to ascertainwhether the respective rules applicableto Mr Fahmi and Mrs Esmoris Cerdeiro-PinedoAmado precludedsuch a refusal.
The Court found first of all that neither the EEC-MoroccoCooperation Agreementnor the Communityprovisions invoked preclude a nationalmeasure which graduallyabolishes an allowancefor dependentchildren aged between 18 and 27 yearspursuing studiesprovided that, as was the case with the legislationat issuein themain proceedings, abolition of the allowancedoes not involve discriminationbased on nationality.So far as concernsthe Spanish national,the Court, interpretingRegulation No 1408171,ruled that a person entitled to a pensionpayable under the legislationof a single MemberState and residing on the territory of anotherMember Statecannot rely on that regulationin order to obtain study finance from the Statefrom which he receiveshis pension.The Court reachedthe sameconclusion in relation to RegulationNo 1612168and Article 39 EC. As regardsthe latterprovision in particular,the Court held that wherea worker has ceasedwork and returned to his MemberState of origin, wherehis childrenalso live, the conditionsto which the grant of study financeis subjectare not capableof impedingthe right to freedomof movementwhich that worker enjoysunder Article 39 EC. So far as concernsthe caseof a Moroccannational, the Court concludedthat, wherehis dependentchildren do not residein the Community,it follows from the wording of Article 41(1) and (3) of the EEC-MoroccoCooperation Agreement,which imposesa residencecondition, that neither he nor his childrencan rely, in relationto studyfinance such as that at issuein the main
19 Cited in footnote2 above.
CooperationAgreement betweenthe EuropeanEconomic Community and the Kingdom of Morocco signedat Rabat an27 April 1976and approvedon behalf of the Comrnunity by CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 22Ill78 of 26 September1978 (OJ 1978L264, p. 1).
37 proceedings,on the provisionof that agreementlaying down the prohibition of discriminationon the basisof nationality.
In InCase C-43199Case Leclere C-43199 andLeclere Deaconescuand I2Nll Deaconescu I2NllECR I-4265,ECR MrI-4265, MrLeclere, aaLeclere, frontier-zoneworker frontier-zone ofworker ofBelgian nationality,Belgian andnationality, hisand wifehis wifebrought proceedingsproceedingsbrought againsta against Luxembourga institution Luxembourg whichinstitution hadwhich refusedhad to refused toaward themaward maternity,maternity,them childbirth andchildbirth child-raisingand allowanceschild-raisingon allowances theon groundthe thatground theythat didthey notdid resideresidenot in inLuxembourg. TheLuxembourg. nationalThe courtnational referredcourt questionsreferred to questions tothe Courtthe ofCourt ofJusticeJustice for fora apreliminary preliminaryruling rulingon on the theinterpretation ofinterpretation ofseveral provisionsseveral provisionsofof RegulationNo 1408/7121 and of RegulationNo 1612168.2 It also raised the issueof whethercertain articles of, andannexes to, RegulationNo l408l7l are compatiblewith Articles 39 EC and42EC.
The questionsThe as questions toas validityto concernedvalidity the concerned compatibilitythe withcompatibility thewith Treatythe ofTreaty ofthethe provisions of the regulation which, as an exception, permit a residence conditionto condition beto imposedbe for imposed thefor awardthe of award Luxembourgof childbirth Luxembourg andchildbirth maternitymaternity and allowances.The Court statedfirst of all that, having regard to the wide discretionwhich the Council enjoysin implementingArticles 39 EC and 43 EC, the exclusionof childbirth allowancesfrom the scope of Regulation No 1408/71does not infringe thoseprovisions. However, that exclusiondoes not havethe effectof dispensingMember States from the needto comply with other rules of Communitylaw, in particularRegulation No 1612168.On the other hand,other thehand, Courtthe heldCourt thatheld thethat inclusionthe ofinclusion ofthe maternitythe allowancematernity in allowance thethein schemeof derogationsprovided for in Article 10aof RegulationNo 1408/71, relating torelating specialto non-contributory special benefits non-contributorypaid benefits exclusivelypaid in exclusively thein territorythe territoryofof the Member Stateof residence,was contraryto Articles 39 EC and42 EC, since thatsince allowancethat does allowance notdoes amountnot to amount toa special a non-contributory special benefit non-contributory ofofbenefit that kind.
The Court held with regardto the child-raisingallowance that it is not one of the family allowanceswhich, pursuantto RegulationNo 1408/71.,are to be paid to personsreceiving pensions irrespective of the MemberState in whose territory they are residing, since the amount of the.,allowanceis fixed irrespective ofirrespective ofthe themrmber ofmrmber ofchildren childrenraised inraised inthe thesame homesame homeand andthethe 'family allowance therefore does not correspond to the definition of allowances'in the regulation.In addition, the Court held that a person in receipt ofreceipt ofan invalidityan pensioninvaliditywho pension resideswho in resides ina Member a StateMemberother State thanother thethethan
2l Cited in footnote I7 above.
Cited in footnote 2 above.
3B Stateproviding his pensionis not a worker within the meaningof Regulation No 1612168and does not enjoy rights attachingto that statusunless they derive from his previousprofessional activity. Such an interpretationresults from the fact that Article 39 EC and RegulationNo 1612168protect a former worker againstany discriminationaffecting rights acquiredduring the former employmentrelationship but, sincehe is no longerengaged in an employment relationship,he cannotacquire new rights having no links with his former activity.
JoinedCases C-95199 to C-98199and C-180/99Khalil and Others(udgment of 11 October2O01, not yet publishedin the ECR) concernedthe right of a numberof statelesspersons and refugees, or their spouses,to child benefitand child-raising allowance in Germany. For a certain period the German Governmenthad confined grant of thoseallowances to foreignersin possession of a residenceentitlement or a residencepermit, so that the grant of such benefitsto thosestateless persons and refugeeswas discontinued.Before the Germancourts they pleadedArticles 2 and 3 of RegulationNo 140817L.2i The Bundessozialgericht(German Federal Social Court) askedthe Court of Justicetwo questionsof Communitylaw. ln its first question,it askedwhether RegulationNo 1408/71is applicableto statelesspersons and refugeeswhen they do not havethe right to freedomof movement.Should the answerto that questionbe in the affirmative, it asked whether that regulation remains applicableif the statelesspersons and refugeesin questionhave travelled directly to a MemberState from a non-membercountry and havenot moved within the Community.
The Court interpretedthe first questionas castingdoubt on the validity of including statelesspersons and refugeesamong the personscovered by RegulationNo 1408/71.It pointedout that it was necessaryto considerthis questionas at the dateof their inclusionin the regulation,that is to say as at 1971,when the legal basisfor the regulationwas Article 7 of the EEC Treaty (now, after amendment,Article 12 EC) and Article 51 of the EEC Treaty (now, after amendment,Article 42EC). Examiningthe internationalcontext at the time of their inclusion,the Court found that the Member Stateshad enteredinto an obligationat internationallevel to allow statelesspersons and refugeesto benefitfrom socialsecurity under the sameconditions as apply to the nationalsof other States.The inclusionof statelesspersons and refugees amongthe personscovered by the regulationthus merelyreflects the content
Cited in footnote I above.
39 of rulesof internationallaw. The Court statedthat Article 42EC providesfor recourseto the techniqueof coordinatingthe nationalsocial security schemes. In effectingsuch coordination, the Council could use Article 42 EC in order to take accountof the States'international obligations, by includingstateless personsand refugeesamong the personscovered by the regulation. Their inclusionwas accordinglyvalid. 'workers So far asconcerns the secondquestion, the Court ruled that who are statelesspersons or refugeesresiding in the territory of one of the Member States,and membersof their families,cannot rely on the rights conferredby RegulationNo 1408/71where they are in a situationwhich is confinedin all respectswithin that one MemberState' (paragraphT2). The Court interpreted RegulationNo 1408/71in the light of Article 42 BC, which constitutesthe basisfor the inclusionof refugeesand statelesspersons among the persons coveredby that regulation.According to the Court, it follows from Article 42 EC and the case-lawrelating to RegulationNo 1408/71that that regulation constitutes anconstitutes aninstrument coordinatinginstrument thecoordinating thesocial socialsecurity securityschemes of schemes ofthethe Member StatesMemberand States thatand itthat itdoes notdoes notapply toapply toactivities whichactivities whichhave nohave nofactorfactor linking themlinking withthem anywith of any theof situationsthe governed situationsby governed Communityby law Community andlaw whichwhichand are confinedin all relevantrespects within a singleMember State.
12.3. In Case C-350199Lange t200U ECR I-1061, the Court interpreted certain provisions of Directive 911533u which relates to an employer's obligationto inform employeesof the conditionsapplicable to the employment relationship.The questionshad been askedin proceedingsconcerning the validity of Mr Lange's dismissalon the ground that he refused to work overtime.The Court interpretedthe directiveas obliging an employerto notiff an employeean of employee ofa term a requiringterm himrequiring tohim workto workovertime whenever overtime requested whenevertoto requested do doso soby byhis hisemployer. employer.That Thatinformation informationmay maytake takethe theform formof ofa ameremere reference to the relevant laws, regulations, administrativeor statutory provisionsor collectiveagreements. The Court statedthat no provisionof the directive requires an essentialelement of the contract or employment relationshipto relationship beto regardedbe as regarded inapplicableas where inapplicable itwhere ithas nothas beennot mentioned been inin mentioned a written documentdelivered to the employeeor has not beenmentioned in such a documentwith sufficientprecision. Finally, the Court ruled that the directive directivedoes notdoes notrequire requirethe thenational courtnational courtto toapply applyor orto torefrain refrainfromfrom
Council Directive 9ll533lEEC of 14 OctoberL99I on an employer'sobligation to inform employeesof theconditions applicable to thecontract or employmentrelationship (OJ L99LL 288, p. 32).
40 applying,in the contextof thedirective, principles of nationallaw underwhich the propertaking of evidenceis deemedto havebeen obstructed where a party to the proceedingshas not complied with his legal obligationsto provide information.
In CaseC-I73199 BECTU [2001]ECR 14881, an Englishcourt referreda questionto the Court of Justicefor a preliminaryruling on the interpretation of Article 7 of Directive 93/104 ä concerning certain aspectsof the organisationof working time. The main questionwas whetherthis directive allows a Member Stateto make the accrual of rights to paid annualleave conditionalon prior completionof a minimum period of 13 weeks' uninterruptedemployment with the sameemployer.
The Court answeredthat questionin the negative,after a detailedexamination of the directive's context and objective. It stated in particular that 'the entitlementof every worker to paid annual leave must be regardedas a particularlyimportantprinciple of Communitysocial law from which therecan be no derogationsand whose implementationby the competentnational authoritiesmust be confinedwithin the limits expresslylaid downby Directive 931104' (paragraph43).
13. With regard to law concerningthe Community'sexternal relations, referencewill be madeto Opinion2lM (13.1), to certainquestions concerning the interpretationof associationagreements (I3.2) and to a judgmentrelating to the interpretationof the Agreementon Trade-RelatedAspects of Intellectual PropertyRights (TNPs) (13.3),
13.1. Opinion 2100of 6 December2001 (not yet publishedin the ECR) concernedthe CartagenaProtocol on Biosafety,an internationalinstrument which was drawn up within the frameworkof the Conventionon Biological Diversity signedon 5 June 1992by the EuropeanEconomic Community and its Member Statesat the conferencein Rio de Janeiroknown as the 'Earth Summit'. The Commission'srequest for an Opinionwas designed to ascertain whetherthe competenceof the Communityto approvethe Protocolhad to be founded on Article 133 EC, relating to common commercialpolicy, and Article 174(4)EC, relatingto the environment,and whether the powers of the
Council Directive 931104/ECof 23 November L993 concerningcertain aspectsof the organisationof working time (OJ 1993L 3A7, p. 18).
4T4T Member Stateswere residual or preponderantin relation to those of the Community.
Certaingovemments Certain and govemments theand Councilthe contestedCouncil the contested admissibilitythe ofadmissibility theof requestrequestthe on theon groundthe thatground itthat itconcerned neither concerned theneither compatibilitythe ofcompatibility ofthe Protocolthe withwithProtocol the Treatythe norTreaty thenor division the ofdivision powersof between powers the between Communitythe and Communitythe and MemberMemberthe Statesunder the Protocol. However, the Court stated: 'the choice of the appropriatelegal appropriate basislegal hasbasis constitutionalhas significance. constitutional Sincesignificance. theSince CommunityCommunitythe hasconferred powers only, it musttie the Protocolto a Treatyprovision which empowersit to approve such a measure' (paragraph5). Recourseto an incorrectlegal basiscould invalidatethe measureconcluding the Protocol, a situation whichsituation whichwould wouldbe beliable liableto tocreate complicationscreate thatcomplications thatthe thespecialspecial procedurelaid down in Article 300(6)EC is specificallydesigned to forestall. On theOn otherthe hand,other thathand, procedurethat involving procedure ainvolving priora priorreference to reference tothe Courtthe Courtisis not notintended tointended tosolve solvedifficulties difficultiesassociated with associated withimplementation ofimplementation ofanan envisagedagreement envisagedwhich agreement fallswhich withinfalls withinshared Community shared and Community Memberand StateStateMember competence.The Court accordinglyheld the requestfor an Opinionadmissible only asonly toas theto questionthe whether questionthe whether Protocolthe fallsProtocol withinfalls exclusivewithin CommunityCommunity exclusive competenceor competence orwithin withinshared Community shared andCommunity Memberand StateMembercompetence.competence. State
On the substance,the Court declared that competenceto conclude the CartagenaProtocol Cartagena wasProtocol sharedwas betweenshared the between theEuropean Community European andCommunity thetheand Member States.It rejectedthe Commission'sargument that the Protocol essentiallyfalls within the scopeof Article 133EC while certainmore specific mattersin the Protocol are coveredby Article I74 EC. Its reasoningwas foundedon settledcase-law concerning the legal basisfor measures.ln the light of the context,aim andcontent of the Protocol,the Court found that 'its mainpurpose or componentis the protectionof biologicaldiversity against the harmful effectsharmful whicheffects whichcould resultcould fromresult fromactivities thatactivities involvethat involvedealing withwithdealing [modified living[modified livingorganisms], in organisms], particularin fromparticular theirfrom transboundary their movement'movement' transboundary (paragraph34). That f,nding, andother considerations relating in particularto the thefact factthat thethat the Protocol isProtocol isan aninstrument intendedinstrument essentiallyintended toessentially toimproveimprove biosafety andbiosafety notand not to topromote, promote,facilitate facilitateor orgovern trade,govern ledtrade, ledthe theCourt Courttoto 'conclusion 'conclusion declarethat declare that of ofthe Protocolthe onProtocol behalfon ofbehalf ofthe Communitythe mustCommunity bebemust foundedon a single legal basis,specific to environmentalpolicy' (paragraph 42).42).
L3.2, In Case C-63199Gloszczttk [2001] ECR I-6369, Case C-257199 Barlrociand Malik [200U ECR I-6557 and Case C-235199Kondova t200U ECRI-927, ECRI-927,the Courtthe interpretedCourt identical interpretedprovisions identical concerning provisionsthe concerning rightthe rightofof establishmentwhich establishment iswhich providedis forprovided byfor theby Europethe Agreements Europe establishing Agreementsanan establishing
4242 associationbetween the Communityand its MemberStates and, respectively, the Republicof Poland,the CzechRepublic and the Republicof Bulgaria.26 Sincethe clarificationprovided by the Court is substantiallysimilar in all three cases,reference will be madeto thejudgment in Gloszczukonly.
The Court found first of all that the provisionsof the associationagreement which lay down a prohibitionpreventing Member States from discriminating, on groundsof nationality,against Polish nationals wishing to pursueeconomic activities as self-employedpersons within the territory of thoseStates have direct effect, since such provisions establisha precise and unconditional principlewhich is sufficientlyoperational to be appliedby a nationalcourt and which is thereforecapable of governingthe legal positionof individuals.The directeffect of thoseprovisions means that individuals may invokethem before the courts of the host Member State. However, such direct effect doesnot prevent the authoritiesof the host State from applying national laws and regulationsregarding entry, stayand establishment. Next, the Court statedthat the right of establishmentlaid downby the associationagreement presupposes a right to enter and remain. However, the interpretationof the right of establishmentunder Community law cannotbe extendedto similarprovisions in the associationagreement, which has a more limited aim than the EC Treaty. In the contextof the associationagreement, the right of establishment is not an absoluteprivilege, since its exercisemay be limited by the legislation of the host MemberState concerning entry, stayand establishment, subject to the conditionthat the benefitsaccruing to the Republicof Polandunder the agreementare not nullified or impaired.Finally, the Court reviewedwhether the restrictionsimposed on the right of establishmentwere compatible with that condition. In this regard, the Court held compatiblewith the association agreementa systemof prior control which makesthe issueof leaveto enter
Europe Agreementestablishing an associationbetween the EuropeanCommunities and their Member States,of the one part, and the Republic of Poland, of the other part, ccrncludedand approved on behalf of the Community by Decision 93l743lEuratom, ECSC, EC of the Council and the Commissionof 13 December 1993 (OJ 1993 L 348, p. 1); EuropeAgreement establishing an associationbetween the EuropeanCommunities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Czech Republic, of the other part, concludedand approvedon behalf of the Community by Decision 941910/ECSC,EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commissionof 19 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 360, p" 1); EuropeAgreement establishing an associationbetween the EuropeanCommunities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Bulgaria, of the other part, concludedand approyedon behalf of the Community by Decision 94/9A8|ECSC, EC, Euratom of the Council and the Commissionof 19 December1994 (OI 1994L 358, p. 1).
43 and remainand subjectremain tosubject tothe thecondition conditionthat thatthe theapplicant mustapplicant mustshow thatshow thathehe genuinelyintends genuinelyto intends totake uptake anup activityan activityas aas self-employeda person self-employed withoutperson atatwithout the samethe time same enteringtime intoentering intoemployment or employment orhaving recoursehaving to recourse topublic publicfunds,funds, and that he possesses,from the outset,sufficient financial resources and has reasonablechances of success.The associationagreement does not preclude the hostthe Memberhost State Memberfrom State rejectingfrom anrejecting applicationan for application establishmentfor made establishmentbyby made a aPolish nationalPolish pursuantnational topursuant toArticle ArticleaaQ) aaQ)of ofthat thatagreement on agreement onthe thesolesole groundthat ground thethat Polishthe nationalPolish was national residingwas illegally residing withinillegally thewithin tenitorythe tenitoryof thatthatof Statebecause of falserepresentations made for the purposeof obtaininginitial leave toleave toenter itenter itor orof ofnon-compliance with non-compliance withthe theconditions attachedconditionsto attached tothatthat entry. Thus,the host State may requirethe submissionof a new applicationfor establishmentto the competentauthorities in the Stateof origin or in another country.
Case C-268199Jarry and Others (udgment of 20 November2001, not yet publishedin published inthe ECR)the concernedECR) the concerned rightthe rightof ofestablishment of establishment ofseveral PolishPolishseveral and Czechand nationals. Czech The nationals. NetherlandsThe authorities Netherlandshad authorities refusedhad them refused residenceresidencethem permitsto enablethem to work asself-employed prostitutes. So far asconcerns the generalthe interpretationgeneral (directinterpretation effect,(direct effect, limits limits and soand forth)so forth)of ofthe therelevantrelevant provisions ofprovisions ofthe theassociation agreements associationbetween agreements thebetween theCommunity Communityand anditsits Member StatesMember and,States and,respectively, therespectively, theRepublic ofRepublic ofPoland andPoland andthe theCzechCzech Republic, theRepublic, Courtthe referredCourt toreferred theto casethe of case ofGloszczttk The Gloszczttk questionThe then question arosearosethen as toas whetherto the whether activitythe ofactivity prostitutionof carriedprostitution oncarried inon ain self-employed a capacitycapacity self-employed falls within the conceptof 'economicactivities as self-employedpersons'.
The TheCourt Courtstated thatstated thatthis thisconcept hasconcept thehas thesame meaningsame andmeaning scopeand asscope thetheas concept of 'activities as self-employedpersons' used in Article 43 EC. Prostitutioncarried on in a self-employedcapacity falls within the scopeof the right ofright establishmentof as establishment providedas forprovided byfor theby associationthe agreements associationand agreements byand thetheby EC TreatyEC itself.itself.Treaty
Furthermore,as regardsthe possiblelimitations which a MemberState might imposein impose inview ofview ofthe specificthe naturespecific ofnature ofthe activitythe ofactivity prostitution,of theprostitution, CourtCourtthe ruled that prostitutionis an economicactivity carriedon in a self-employed capacityprovided that it is being carried on (i) outsideany relationshipof subordination assubordination asto tothe thechoice choiceof ofthat thatactivity, activity,working workingconditions conditionsandand conditionsof remuneration,(ii) underthe relevantperson's own responsibility and (iii) in return for remunerationpaid to that persondirectly and in full.
In Inreaching thisreaching thisconclusion, theconclusion, theCourt Courtrejected anrejected anargument raisedargument byraised bythethe nationalcourt as possiblylimiting applicationof the associationagreements,
44 namelythe immoralityof the activity of prostitution.The Court, relying on its case-law(Case C-159190 Society for the Protectionof UnbornCltildren lreland 'it [1991]ECR I-4685),pointed out rhat is not for the Courtto substiruteits own assessmentfor that of the legislaturesof the Member Stateswhere an allegedlyimmoral activity is practisedlegally' (paragraph56). The Court then 'far statedthat, from being prohibitedin all Member States,prostitution is tolerated,even regulated, by most of thoseStates, notably the MemberState concernedin the present case' (paragraph57). The Kingdom of the Netherlandscould not haverecourse to the public-policyderogation provided for by the associationagreements because applicability of that derogationis subjectto the conditionthat the Statewhich relies on it has adoptedeffective measuresto monitor and represslike activitiespursued by its own nationals.
13.3. In CaseC-89/99 Schieving-Nijstad and Others[2001] ECR I-5851,the Court confirmedits case-law(Case C-53l96 Hermös[1998] ECR I-3603 and JoinedCases C-300/98 and C-392198Dior and Otherst20001 ECR I-11307) relating to Article 50 of TRlPs, an agreementset out in Annex 1 C to the WTO Agreement.That articleis a proceduralprovision relating to provisional judicial protectionof intellectualproperty rights which is to be appliedby Communityand nationalcourts in accordancewith obligationsassumed both by the Communityand by the Member States.As in Dior and Others, the Court held that thatprocedural provision of TRIPsdoes not havedirect effect. Nevertheless,where the judicial authoritiesare calledupon to apply national rules with a view to ordering provisional measuresfor the protection of intellectualproperty rights falling within a field to which TRIPs appliesand in respectof which the Communityhas alreadylegislated, they are required to do so as far as possiblein the light of the wording and purposeof Article 50, so as to ensurethat a balanceis struckbetween the competingrights and obligationsof the right holder and of the defendant.
14. Inthe environmentalfield, CaseC-324/99 DaimlerChrysler (udgment of 13 December2001, not yet publishedin the ECR) shouldbe mentioned. This caseconcerned the interpretationof Regulation(EEC) No 259193n on shipments of waste in the Community. In proceedings between DaimlerChrysler and the Land of Baden-Württemberg, the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 259193of 1 February 1993on the supervisionand control of shipmentsof waste within, into and out of the EuropeanCommunity (OJ 1993 L 30, p. 1).
45 Bundesverwaltungsgericht(German Federal Administrative Court) sought a preliminaryruling on a numberof questionsconcerning the compatibilitywith Communitylaw of a decreeof the Land enactedpursuant to that regulation. The decreehad been adoptedon the basis of a provision in the regulation which permits the Member States, in certain sases, to adopt measures prohibiting generallythe export of waste for disposal.That provision also requiresthe measuresof prohibition to be taken 'in accordancewith the Treaty'.
The nationalcourt was uncertain first of all whetherthat expression means that it is necessaryto veri$r whetherthe prohibitionis consistentwithprimary law, in particularArticles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC. In this connection,the Court of ofJustice observed Justice that observed thethat nationalthe courtnational hadcourt nothad questionednot the questioned validitythe validityofof Article a(3)(a)of RegulationNo 259193in the light of Articles 28 F,C,29 EC 'where and 30 EC. It recalledthe case-lawaccording to which, a matter is regulatedin regulated ina harmonised a manner harmonisedat manner Cornmunityat level, Cornmunity anylevel, nationalany measuremeasurenational relating thereto must be assessedin the light of the provisions of that harmonisingmeasure and not of Articles I28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC]' (paragraph32, which cites CaseC-37192 Vanacker and LesageU9931 ECR l-4947, paragraph9). The Court then conducteda detailedexamination of RegulationNo 259193,concluding that it regulatesin a harmonisedmanner the questionof shipmentsof wasteand that, accordingly,national measures must be assessedin the light of the provisionsof the regulationand not of Articles 28 EC, 29 EC and 30 EC. In additionthe expression'in accordancewith the Treaty' was interpretedby the Court 'as meaningthat, in additionto being compatiblewith the Regulation,such ... measuresmust alsocomply with the generalrules or principlesof the Treaty to which no direct referenceis made in the legislationadopted in the field of wasteshipments' (paragraph 45).
By its other questions,the nationalcourt askedthe Court of Justicewhether certainaspects of the Germanwaste disposal legislation were compatible with RegulationNo 259193.The Court ruled that thatregulation does not authorise a Membera StateMemberwhich State has which introducedhas an introduced obligationan to obligation offerto wasteoffer for waste fordisposaldisposal to toan approvedan body approved tobody provideto thatprovide anythat shipmentany of shipment ofsuch wastesuch towaste totreaünenttreaünent installationsin other MemberStates is authorisedonly on conditionthat the intendeddisposal satisfies the environmentalrequirements of the legislationof the Stateof origin. Likewise, the regulationprecludes a MemberState from applying toapplying toshipments of shipments ofsuch wastesuch itswaste itsown ownprocedure inprocedure inrelation relationto tothethe notification, offernotification, offerand allocationand ofallocation ofwaste separate waste from separate thatfrom laidthat down laid indown inthethe regulation.
46 15. In the field of transportpolicy, the casesof ltaly v Commissionand Analir will be noted.
In CaseC-361/98 ltaly v Commission[2001] ECR I-385,the Courtdismissed an action brought by the Italian Governmentfor annulmentof a decision adoptedby the Commissionpursuant to Regulation(EEC) No 24A8192.x The contesteddecision prohibited the Italian Republicfrom applying certain rules distributingtraffic betweenthe Milan airportsat Linate and Malpensa, on the groundthat they had discriminatoryeffects in favour of Alitalia. The rules were also consideredto be contraryto the principle of proportionality. The Italian Governmentcontended that the Commissionhad exceededthe limits of the power conferredon it by RegulationNo 24ABl92:the regulation refers only to the principle of non-discriminationon the ground of the nationalityof the air carrier, whereasthe contesteddecision was basedon the principleof proportionality.
The Court recalls in the judgment that, in interpreting a provision of Communitylaw, it is necessary'to considernot only its wording but also the contextin which it occursand the objectsof the rules of which it forms part' (paragraph31). The Court deducedfrom the recitals in the preambleto RegulationNo 2408/92that thatregulation is intendedto definethe conditions for applyingin the air transportsector the principleof the freedomto provide serviceswhich is enshrinedin the Treaty. It found that the Italian measures declaredby the Commissionto be incompatiblewith the regulationconstituted restrictionson the freedomto provideservices. The Court concludedthat, in order for those restrictionsto be capableof being authorisedunder the regulation,they had to be proportionateto the purposefor which they were adopted.Consequently, the Commissionhad been fully entitled to examine whether the Italian measureswere proportionateand appropriatefor the purposeof achievingthe objectivepursued.
CaseC-205199 Analir and Otherst20011 ECR I-1271concerned freedom to provideservices in the field of maritimetransport within MemberStates. The Tribunal Supremo(Spanish Supreme Court) had referred for a preliminary ruling three questionson the interpretationof severalarticles of Regulation
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408192of 23 July 1992 on accessfor Community air carriers to intra-Communityair routes(OJ L992L 240, p. 8).
47 (EEC) No 3577192,2e which applies the principle of freedom to provide servicesto services maritimeto transportmaritimewithin transport withinMember StatesMember(maritime States cabotage).(maritime TheThe cabotage). questionswere askedin connectionwith severalactions brought by Spanish shipping companiesshipping forcompanies forannulment ofannulment ofthe theSpanish legislationSpanish onlegislation onregularregular maritime cabotagemaritimelines cabotage andlines public-interestand shipping public-intereston shipping theon ground the thatground itthat itwaswas contraryto Communitylegislation.
By Byits itsfirst firstquestion, thequestion, nationalthe courtnational courtasked whetherasked itwhether itis iscompatible withwithcompatible RegulationNo 3577192to make the provision of island cabotageservices subjectto subject toprior prior administrative authorisation. administrativeThe authorisation. CourtThe ofCourt ofJustice stated Justicethatthat stated the theaim aimof ofthe theregulation isregulation isto toapply applythe thefreedom tofreedom toprovide provideservices totoservices maritime cabotage.maritime It cabotage. Itrecalled itsrecalled case-lawits concerning case-law the concerning freedomthe to freedom provideprovideto servicesand concludedthat a system of prior authorisationconstitutes a restrictionof that freedom.That restrictionmay neverthelessbe justified as a meansof imposingpublic serviceobligations, provided that the schemeof prior authorisationcomplies with a number of conditions:(i) a real public service needservice arisingneed fromarising fromthe theinadequacy of inadequacy ofthe theregular transportregular servicesservicestransport under conditionsunder of conditions offree competitionfree cancompetition becan demonstrated;be (ii) demonstrated; (ii)the schemethe isis scheme necessaryand proportionate to the aim pursued;and (iii) the schemeis based on objective,on non-discriminatoryobjective, criteria non-discriminatory criteriawhich whichare knownare inknown inadvance to advance tothethe undertakingsconcerned. undertakingsIn concerned. Inits replyits toreply theto secondthe question, second the question, Courtthe heldCourt thatthatheld RegulationNo 3577192permits a MemberState to includein the conditions for forgranting andgranting maintainingand priormaintaining prioradministrative authorisationadministrativea authorisation aconditioncondition enablingaccount enablingto account beto takenbe of taken ofthe solvency the of solvency ofa Community a shipowner, Communitysuchsuch shipowner, as theas therequirement that requirement hethat heis is to to have nohave nooutstanding tax outstanding taxor or social securitysecuritysocial debts,provided that sucha conditionis appliedon a non-discriminatorybasis. ln answeringthe third question,the Court interpretedArticle 4(1) of the regulationas permittinga MemberState to imposepublic serviceobligations on someon shipping some companies shipping and, companies atand, theat samethe time, same totime, concludeto public conclude serviceservicepublic contractswith contracts withothers forothers forthe samethe line same lineor orroute, providedroute, thatprovided athat reala publicpublicreal service needservicecan need becan demonstratedbe and demonstrated inand inso farso faras thatas applicationthat of application ofthe twotwothe methods concurrentlymethods isconcurrently ison ona a non-discriminatory basisnon-discriminatory andbasis andis isjustified justifiedinin relationto the public-interestobjective pursued.
CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 3577192of 7 December1992 applying the principle of freedomto provide servicesto maritime transportwithin Member States(maritime cabotage)(OJ 1992L 364,p. 7).
48 1"6. In the field of tar, caseson value addedtax (VAT) remainplentiful and,of these,Case C-34199 Primback t20011 ECR I-3833is to be noted.In this case, the Court interpreted the provisions of the Sixth Directive 771388/EEC30 which relateto the taxableamount. A retailer sold goodsby meansof interest-freecredit grantedto purchasersby a personother than the seller.The financecompany subsequently paid to the vendora sumlower than the price of the goods,the differencebeing the considerationfor grantingthe credit. Consumerswere not informedof that financialtransaction entered into withouttheir knowledge.The legalquestion was what amount(the net amount actuallyreceived by the seller or the full amountpayable by the purchaser) shouldbe regardedas the taxableamount for VAT purposes.The Court held that in suchcircumstances the taxableamount for the purposesof calculating VAT consistsof the full amountpayable by the purchaser.
In a case relating to tax law and insurancelaw (Case C-t9l/99 Kvaerner [2001]ECRI-4447), the Court gavea preliminaryruling on the interpretation of Directive 88l357lEEC concerning insurance,31 in particular on the definition of establishmentand of the Statewhere the risk is situated.In ils judgment, the Court ruled that Articles 2 and 3 of the directive permit a Member Stateto levy insurancetax on a legal personestablished in another MemberState in respectof premiumswhich that legal personhas paid to an insurer,also established in anotherMember State, to cover the businessrisks of its subsidiaryor sub-subsidiaryestablished in the MemberState making the levy. The outcomeis the sameif the legalperson which haspaid the premiums and the legal personwhose business risks are coveredare two companiesin the samegroup linked by a relationshipother than that of parentand subsidiary company.
L7. Threecases relating tothe commonagricultural policy areto be noted, respectivelyconcerning Community measuresto combat foot-and-mouth disease, emergency measures to protect against bovine spongiform
Sixth Council Directive77|388/EEC of 17 May 1977on the harmonisationof the laws of the Member Statesrelating to turnover taxes- Common systemof value addedtax: uniform basisof assessment(OJ 1977L 145, p. 1).
SecondCouncil Directive 88/357|EEC of 22 June 1988 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to direct insurance other than life assuranceand laying down provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide servicesand amendingDirective73l239lEEC (OJ 1988L 172, p. 1).
49 encephalopathy,and the protection ofgeographical indications and designations of origin.
Jippes and Others, cited above, is the first instancewhere the accelerated procedureunder Article 104a of the Rules of Procedurein respect of referencesfor a preliminaryruling has beenapplied. In this case,the Court wasrequired to decidewhether the ban on vaccinationagainst foot-and-mouth diseaseprovided for by Directive85l3ll andthe Commissiondecision adopted pursuantto that directive 32 was valid in the light of the Treaty and in particularthe principle of proportionality,given the needto safeguardanimal welfare.
The Court held that the Communityinstitutions are obligedto take accountof the healththe andhealth protectionand ofprotection ofanimals in animals inthe formulationthe andformulation implementationand ofof implementation the commonagricultural policy, addingthat fulfilment of that obligationcan be verified in a reviewof the proportionalityof the measure.After examining the proportionalityof the measureimposing the banon preventivevaccination, the Court concludedthat, having regardto the Council's wide discretionary power inpower thein matter,the thematter, banthe did ban notdid exceednot the exceed limitsthe oflimits whatof waswhat appropriateappropriatewas and necessaryand in necessary orderin toorder attainto the attain objectivethe pursued objectiveby pursued theby Communitythe rules.rules. Community So far as concernsthe decision adoptedby the Commissionpursuant to Directive 85/511, that is to say Decision200L1246, the Court held that the directive constitutedan adequatelegal basis for its adoption.Finally, the Commissiondecision did not infringe the principle of equaltreatment, since the animalsthe whichanimals couldwhich be could vaccinatedbe under vaccinated theunder Communitythe rulesCommunity wererules notnotwere in a situationcomparable to that of Ms Jippes'animals.
In its judgmentof 13 December2001 in CaseC-1100 Commission v France (not yet publishedin the ECR), the Court declaredthat the FrenchRepublic had actedunlawfully by refusingto adoptthe measuresnecessary in order to
CouncilDirective 85/51I/EEC of 18 November1985 introducing Community measures for the control of foot-and-mouthdisease (OJ 1985 L3I5, p. 11), as amendedby CouncilDirective 9AAZ3|EEC of 26 June1990 (OJ 1990L 224, p. 13). Commission Decision200ll246/ECof 27 March2001 laying down the conditions for thecontrol and eradicationof foot-and-mouthdisease in the Netherlandsin applicationof Article 13 of Directive 85/511 (OJ z0ro-lL 88, p.zl), as amendedby CommissionDecision 2001,127918Cof 5 April 2001(OJ 2A0I L 96, p. 19).
50 complywith CouncilDecision 981256 and Commission Decision !999151"4,33 relating to emergency measuresto protect against bovine spongiform encephalopathy.Those decisions had lifted the exportban so far as concerns certainmeat and meat products from cattleslaughtered in the UnitedKingdom, subjectto the strict conditionsof a date-basedexport scheme.Contrary to thosedecisions, the FrenchRepublic unilaterally decided to maintainthe ban.
However, its failure to fulfil its obligationswas not as extensiveas the Commissionclaimed. The Commissiondid not establishthat the French Governmentwould haveprevented the import of all beef andveal or all meat- basedproducts from other MernberStates not bearing the distinct mark of productssubject to the export schemeestablished by the decisionsin question on the ground that certain consignmentsof meat or of cut, processedor rewrappedproducts could includebeef, veal or productsof United Kingdom origin which would not be identifiableas such.Accordingly, the application for a finding of failure to fulfil obligationswas dismissedin so far as it concernedthat category of products.The Commissionalso sought a declaration that Article 28 EC, relatingto free movementof goods,had beeninfringed. The Court observedwith regardto this claim thatthe Commissionhad offered no justification for a finding of an infringementseparate from that already foundin relationto the decisionsreferred to above.It thereforedismissed this part of the Commission'sapplication. It likewiserejected the Commission's claim relatingto breachof Article t0 EC, which the FrenchRepublic had not infringed given the difficulties in interpretingand implementingDecision 98t2s6.
CaseC-269199 Kühne and Others(udgment of 6 Decernber2001, not yet publishedin the ECR) concerneda questionreferred for a preliminaryruling relating to the validity of the registrationof the designation'Spreewälder Gurken' as a geographicalindication of origin under Regulation(EEC) No
Council Decision 981?56iEC *f 16 March 1998 concerning emergency measuresto protect againstbovine spongifCIrrnencephalopathy, amending Decision 94l474lEC and repealingDecision 96i239lEC {OJ 1998 L 113, p.32), in the version resulting from Commission Decision 98/692/EC of 25 Novemher 1998 (OJ 1998 L 328, p. 28)" CommissionDecision 19991514/ECof ?3 July 1999setting the clateon which dispatch from the United Kingdom of bovine productsunder the date-basedexpofi schememay conrmencehy virtue of Article 6(5) nf Decision981256 (OJ 1999L 195,p. 42).
5151 2081192.3 The Court found it necessaryto rule on the division of powers betweenthe MemberState which has submittedan applicationfor registration andthe Commission.The Court statedthat it is for the MemberState to check whetherthe applicationfor registrationis justified with regardto the conditions laid down by that regulation.It is for the Commission,in turn, to veriff, in particular, whether the specificationwhich accompaniesthe application complieswith RegulationNo 2081192and, on the basisof the information contained containedin inthe thespecification, specification,whether whetherthe thedesignation designationsatisfies satisfiesthethe requirementsof Article 2(2)(a)or (b) of theregulation. That systemof division of ofpowers ispowers isattributable particularly attributable toparticularly tothe factthe thatfact registrationthat presupposespresupposes registration verificationthat a certainnumber of conditionshave beenmet, a task which requires,to a great extent, detailedknowledge of mattersparticular to the Member StateMemberconcerned, State which concerned, thewhich competentthe authorities competentof authorities thatof Statethat are State bestbestare placedto check.Thus, questionssuch as whether a denominationis established by byusage or usage orconcerning the concerning definitionthe ofdefinition ofthe geographicalthe area geographical fallarea fallwithin withinthethe checkswhich checks mustwhich bemust carriedbe outcarried byout theby competentthe national competentauthorities. national So authorities. farfarSo as concernsas the concerns argumentthe that argument itthat itwas notwas possiblenot to possible challengeto at challenge nationalat levellevel national the measurethe consisting measureof consisting theof applicationthe for application registration,for the registration, Courtthe recalledCourt thethe recalled case-law accordingcase-law toaccording towhich whichit itis isfor forthe thenational courtsnational courtsto torule ruleon on thethe lawfulnessof anapplication for registrationof a designationand, consequently, to regardan actionbrought for thatpurpose as admissible, even if the domestic rules of proceduredo not provide for this in such a case (Case C-97l9l OleificioBorelliv CommissionU992lECR I-6313,paragraph 13).
18. So far as concernsthe law relatingto Communityfficials, threecases will be mentioned.It shouldbe notedthat, in so far as they raisedquestions regardingfundamental rights, their interestis not limited to interpretationof the Staffthe RegulationsStaff of Regulations Officialsof ofOfficials theof Europeanthe Communities European but Communities alsobut relatesrelatesalso to the Communitylegal order as a whole.
In Case C-274199P Connollyv Commissiont200ll ECR I-1611, the Court definedthe scopeof the freedomof expressionof Communityofficids so far as concernsas publications concerns dealingpublications withdealing with the workthe workof ofthe Community,the which,which,Community, under Articleunder Article17 of17 ofthe Staffthe Regulations,Staff must Regulations, bemust submittedbe by submitted themby forthem priorpriorfor permission.When Mr Connolly, a Commissionofficial, publisheda book
CouncilRegulation (EEC) No 2081192of 14July 1992on theprotection of geographical indicationsand designationsof origin for agriculturalproducts and foodstuffs(OJ 1992 L 208,p. 1).
5252 withouthaving first requestedpermission as required by the Staff Regulations, disciplinaryproceedings were broughtagainst him. Following delivery of an opinion by the DisciplinaryBoard, Mr Connolly was dismissed.He brought proceedingsbefore the Court of First Instancefor annulmentof the decision removinghim from his post. That actionwas dismissedby the Court of First Instance'sjudgment in Joined CasesT-34196 and T-163196Connolly v CommissionllggglECR-SC I-A-87 and II-463. Mr Connollyappealed against thatjudgment to the Court of Justice.
The appealwas dismissed.In its judgment,the Court of Justicerecalled that fundamentalrights, which includefreedom of expression,form an integralpart of the generalprinciples of Communitylaw. In the sameterms as thoseused by the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights, the Court of Justiceobserved that freedom of expressionconstitutes one of the essentialfoundations of a democraticsociety and one of the basicconditions for its progressand for the developmentof every man. Limitations on freedomof expression,such as thoseset out in Article 10(2) of the EuropeanConvention for the Protection of HumanRights and Fundamental Freedoms are to be interpretedstrictly. The needto seekprior permissionfor thepublication of any rnatterdealing with the work of the Communitiesforms part of the protectionof the institutions' rights. Suchrules requiringprior permissionreflect the relationshipof trust which must exist betweenemployers and employees,particularly when they dischargehigh-level responsibilities in the public service.The Court pointed out thatthe Communityjudicature must ensure a fair balancebetween freedom of expressionand the legitimateinterests of the institutionsand appliedthose principlesto the specificfacts. It concludedfrom the factsthat Mr Connolly was dismissednot becausehe had failed to apply for prior permissionor becausehe had expresseda dissentientopinion, but becausehe published materialseverely criticising members of the Commissionand other superiors and challengingfundamental aspects of Communitypolicies. Accordingly, he committedan irremediablebreach of the trust which the Commissionis entitledto expectfrom its officials and,as a result,made it impossiblefor any employmentrelationship to be maintainedwith the institution.
In its judgmentof 13 December2001 in CaseC-340100 P Commissionv Cwik (not yet publishedin the ECR), the Court upheld on appealthe judgment deliveredby the Court of First Instancein CaseT-82/99 CWikv Commission t20001ECR-SC I-A-155 and II-713. The Court of First Instancehad annulled a decisionby the Commissionrefusing Mr Cwik, a EuropeanCommunities official, permissionto publish the text of a lecture that he had given. The Court recalled the principles which it had laid down in Connolly v
53 Commission,cited above,and rejectedthe groundsof appealput forward by the Commission.It held that the Court of First Instancedid not fail to have regardto the preventivefunction of the prior permissionprocedure laid down by the Staff Regulations,but simply criticised the reasonsput forward to substantiatethe decisionto refusepublication: those reasons had merely stated that therethat wasthere awas riska thatrisk thethat intereststhe of interests ofthe Europeanthe Communities European would Communities bebewould prejudicedwhere an official's opinion was different from the view expressed by the Commission.The Court statedthat a refusalof permissionto publish can be warrantedonly where there is a real risk of seriousprejudice to the interestsof the EuropeanCommunities, established on the basisof specific, objectivefactors.
In JoinedCases C-L22199 P and C-125199P D and Swedenv Council [200U ECR I-4319, the Court dismissedtwo appealsbrought by D andthe Kingdom of Sweden againstthe judgment of the Court of First Instancein Case T-264197D v Council}9991ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1, in which the Court of First Instancehad dismissedD's action for annulmentof the refusalby the Council of the EuropeanUnion to awardhim the householdallowance. The facts were as follows. D, a EuropeanCornmunities official of Swedish nationality workingnationality workingat theat Council,the hadCouncil, registeredhad a registered partnershipa with partnership withanotheranother Swedishnational of the samesex in Sweden.He appliedto the Councilfor his statusas a registeredpartner to be treatedas beingequivalent to marriagefor the purposeof obtainingthe householdallowance provided for in the Staff Regulationsof Officials of the EuropeanCommunities. The Council rejected his applicationon the groundthat the provisionsof the Staff Regulationscould not be construedas allowing a registeredpartnership to be treatedas being equivalentto marriage.The Court of First Instanceconfirmed the legality of thatdecision and the Court of Justicedismissed the appealsbrought against the Court of First Instance'sjudgment.
Among the groundsof appeal,the most important were those relating to interpretationof interpretation ofthe Staffthe RegulationsStaff and Regulations toand equalto treatment. equal The treatment. CourtThe statedstatedCourt that, having regardto the great diversitydisplayed by nationalrules in their legaltreatment of couplesof the samesex, the Communityjudicature could not interpretthe Staff Regulationsin sucha way that legal situationsdistinct from 'only 'only marriage weremarriage treatedwere intreated inthe sirmethe way sirme wayas marriage.as Itmarriage. Itadded that added that thethe legislaturecan, whereappropriate, adopt measures to alter that situation,for exampleby amendingthe provisionsof the Staff Regulations'(paragraph 38). So far as concernsapplication of the principle of equaltreatment, the Court had to considerwhether the situationof an official who has registereda partnershipbetween persons of the samesex is comparableto thatof a married
54 official. It statedthat thosesituations were not comparable,given the great diversityof relevantnational laws andthe absenceof any generalassimilation of marriageand other forms of statutoryunion.
55
B Compositionof the Court of Justice
(Order of precedenceas at 1 January2001)
First row, from lefi to right: Judge V. Skouris; First Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer; Judge C. Gulmann; PresidentG.C" Rodrfguez lglesias; Judge A.M. La Pergola; Judge M. Wathelet; Advocate GeneralF.G. Jacobs.
Secondrow, Second fromrow, fromleft toleft toright:right: JudgeR. Schintgen;Judge P. Jann;Advocate General A. Tizzano;Iudge D.A,O. Edward; AdvocateGeneral P. L6ger; Iudge L. Sevön;Advocate General S. Alber; AdvocateGeneral J. Mischo.
Third row,Third fromrow, fromlefi lefito toright:right: AdvocateGeneral C. Stix-Hackl;Judge J.-P. Puissochet,Judge C.W,A. Timmermans;Judge N. Colneric,Judge F. Macken;Judge S. von Bahr; JudgeJ.N. CunhaRodrigues; Advocate GeneralL.A. Geelhoed;R. Grass,Registrar.
57
1. The Members of the Court of Justice (in order of their entry into office)
Gil Carlos Rodrfguez Iglesias
Born 1946; Assistant lecturer and subsequentlyProfessor (Universities of Oviedo, Freiburg im Breisgau, Universidad Autönoma, Madrid, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, and the University of Granada); Professor of Public International Law (Granada); Member of the Supervisory Board of the Max-Planck Instin.rte of International Public Law and Comparative Law, Heidelberg; Doctor honoris causa of the University of Turin, the University of Cluj-Napoca (Romania) and the University of Saarland; Honorary Bencher, Gray's Inn (London) and King's Inn (Dublin); Honorary Member of the Society of Advanced Legal Studies (London); Honorary Member of the Academia Asturiana de Jurisprudencia;Judge at the Court of Justice since 3l January 1986; President of the Court of Justice since 7 October 1994.
Francis G. Jacobs, QC
Born 1939; Barrister; Official in the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights; Legal Secretary to Advocate General J.-P. Warner; Professor of European Law (King's College, London); Author of several works on European law; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 1988.
Claus Christian Gulmann
Born 1942; Official at the Ministry of Justice; Legal Secretaryto JudgeMax Ssrensen;Professor of PublicInternational Law and Dean of the Law School of the University of Copenhagen;in private practice; Chairman and member of arbitral tribunals; Member of AdministrativeAppeal Tribunal; AdvocateGeneral at the Court of Justicefrom 7 October1991 to 6 October1994; Judge at the Court of Justicesince 7 October1994.
59 David Alexander Ogilvy Edward
Born 1934;Advocate (Scotland); Queen's Counsel (Scotland); Clerk, and subsequentlyTreasurer, of the Faculty of Advocates;President of the Consultative Comminee of the Bars and Law Societies of the EuropeanCommunity; Salvesen Professor of EuropeanInstinrtions and Director of the Europa Institute, University of Edinburgh; Special Adviser to the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities;Honorary Bencher,Gray's Inn, London; Judgeat the Court of First Instancefrom 25 September1989 to 9 March 1992; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 10 March L992.
Antonio Mario La Pergola
Born l93l; Professor of Constitutional Law and General and ComparativePublic Law at the Universities of Padua, Bologna and Rome; Member of the High Council of the Judiciary (1976-t978); Memberof the ConstitutionalCourt and Presidentof the Constitutional Court (1986-1987);Minister for Community Policy (1987-1989); electedto the EuropeanParliament (1989-1994); Judge at the Court of Justicefrom 7 October 1994to 3l December1994; Advocate General at the Court of Justice from I January 1995 to 14 December 1999; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 15 December1999.
Jean-PierrePuissochet
Born 1936; State Counsellor (France); Director, subsequently Director-General,of the Legal Serviceof the Council of the European Communities(1968-1973): Director-General of the Agence nationale pour I'emploi (1973-L975):Director of General Administration, Ministry of Industry (1977-1979);Director of Legal Affairs at the OECD ( 1979-1985); Director of the Institut international d'administrationpublique ( I 985-1 987) ; Jurisconsult,Director of Legal Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1987-1994);Judge at the Court of Justicesince 7 October1994.
60 Philippe L6ger
Born 1938; A memberof the judiciary serving at the Ministry for Justice(1966-1970); Head of, and subsequentlyTechnical Adviser at, the Private Office of the Minister for Living Standardsin 1976; TechnicalAdviser at the Private Office of the Minister for Justice (1976-1978);Deputy Director of Criminal Affairs andReprieves at the Ministry of Justice(1978-1983X Senior Member of the Court of Appeal,Paris (1983-1986); Deputy Director of the PrivateOffice of the Minister for Justice(1986); Presidentof the RegionalCourt at Bobigny(1986-1993); Head of the PrivateOffice of the Minister for Justice, and Advocate General at the Court of Appeal, Paris (1993-1994);Associate Professor at RendDescartes University (Paris V) (1988-1993);Advocate General at the Court of Justicesince 7 October1994.
Peter Jann
Born 1935; Doctor of Law of the Universityof Vienna (1957); appointedJudge and assigned to theFederal Ministry of Justice(1961); Judgein pressmatters at theStraf-Bezirksgericht, Vienna (1963-1966); spokesmanof the Federal Ministry of Justice (1966-1970)and subsequentlyappointed to the internationalaffairs departmentof that Ministry; Adviser to the Justice Committee and spokesmanat the Parliament(1973-1978); appointed as Member of the Constinrtional Court (1978);perrnanent Judge-Rapporteur at that court until the end of 1994;Judge at the Court of Justicesince 19 January1995.
Leif Sevön
Born L94l; Doctor of Law (OTL) of the University of Helsinki; Director at the Ministry of Justice;Adviser in the Trade Directorate of the Ministry of ForeignAffairs; Judgeat the SupremeCourt; Judge at the EFTA Court; Presidentof the EFTA Court; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 19 Januarv1995.
6l Dämaso Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer
Born 1949 Judgeat the ConsejoGeneral del PoderJudicial (General Councilof the Judiciary);Professor; Head of the PrivateOffice of the Presidentof the ConsejoGeneral del PoderJudicial; ad hoc Judgeto the EuropeanCourt of HumanRights; Judge at the Tribunal Supremo (SupremeCourt) since 1996;Advocate General at the Court of Justice since19 January1995.
Melchior Wathelet
Born 1949; Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for National Defence (1995); Mayor of Verviers; Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Justiceand EconomicAffairs (1992-1995);Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Justice and Srnall Firms and Traders (1988-1991); Member of the Chamberof Representatives(1977'1995); degreesin law and in economics(University of Liöge); Master of Laws (Harvard University, USA); Professorat the CatholicUniversity of Louvain; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 19 September1995.
Romain Schintgen
Born 1939;General Administrator at the Ministry of Labour;President of the Economicand Social Council; Director of the Socidt€nationale de credit et d'investissementand of the Soci6t6 europeennedes satellites;Government Representative on the EuropeanSocial Fund Committee,the Advisory Committeeon Freedom of Movement for Workers andWorkers theand Administrativethe BoardAdministrative ofBoard theof Europeanthe Foundation European forfor Foundation the Improvementof Living and Working Conditions; Judge at the Court of First Instancefrom 25 September1989 to 1l July L996:' Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 12 July 1996.
6262 SiegbertAlber
Born l93fi; studied law at the Universities of Tübingen, Berlin, Paris, Hamburg and Vienna; further studies ät Turin and Canrbridget Member nf the Bundestag from 1969 to 1980; Member of the European Parliament in 1977; Member, then Chairman (1993-1994), of'the Comrnittee on Legal Affairs and Citizens' Rights; Chairman of the delegation rcsponsible t*r relations with the Baltic Statesand of the Subcommittees on Data Protection and on Poisonous or Dangerous SuLrstances;Vice-President of'the European Parliament from 1984 to 1992: Advocate General at the Court ol Justice since 7 October 199?.
Jean Mischo
Born 1938; clegrees in iaw and political science {"universities of Montpellier, Paris and Cambridge); memher of the Legal Service of the Commissian and subsequently principal administrator in the private r:ffices of two Members of the Commission; Secretary of Erntrassy in the Contentious Affairs and Treaties Department of the Ministry of Foreign Äffairs of the Grand Duchy of Luxenrbourg; Deputy Permanent Representative of Luxernbourg to the European Communities; Director of Political Affairs in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Advocate General at the Court clf Justice from 13 January 1986 to ö October 1991; Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Aftairs; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 19 December 1997.
Vassilios Skouris
Born 1948;graduated in law from the FreeUniversity, Beriin (1970h awardeddoctorate in constirutionaland administrative law at Hamburg University (1973); Assistant Professor at Hamburg University {1972-1977);Professor of PublicLaw at Bielet'eldUniversity (1978); Professorof Public Law at the Universityof Thessaloniki11982); Minister of Internal Alfairs (1989 and 1996); Member of the AdministrativeBoard of theUniversity of Crete(1983-1987); Director of the Centre for International and European Economic Law, Thessaloniki{from 1997h Presidentof the Greek Associationfor EuropeanLaw (1992-1994);Member of the Greek NationalResearch Committee(1993-1995); Member of the Higher SelectionBoard for GreekCivil Servants(1994-1996); Member of the AcademicCouncil of the Academyof EuropeanLaw, Trier (from 1995);Member of the Administrative Board of the Greek National Judges' College (1995-1996);Member of the ScientificCommittee of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1997-1999);President of the Greek Economicand Social Councilin 1998;Judge at the Court of Justicesince 8 June r999"
63 Fidelma O'Kelly Macken
Born 1945;Called to the Bar of lreland (1972); Legal Advisor, Patent andTrade Mark Agents(1973-1979); Banister (1979-1995) and Senior Counsel(1995-1998) of the Bar of lreland; memberof the Bar of England and Wales; Judge of the High Court in Ireland (1998); 'Averil Lecturer in Legal Systemsand Methodsand Deverell' Lcturer in Commercial Law, Trinity College, Dublin; Bencher of the HonourableSociety of King's Inns; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 6 October1999.
Ninon Colneric
Born 1948; studied in Tübingen, Munich and Geneva; following a period of academicresearch in London, awardeda doctoratein law by the University of Munich; Judge at the Arbeitsgericht Oldenburg; authorised, by the University of Bremen, to teach labour law, sociologyof law and social law; Professorad iruerim at the faculty of law of the universities of Frankfurt and Bremen; Presidentof the LandesarbeisgerichtSchleswig-Holstein (1989); collaboration, as expert, on the EuropeanExpertise Service (EU) project for the reform of the labour law of Kirghizstan (1994-1995);Honorary Professorat the University of Bremen in labour law, specifically in European labour law; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 15 July 2000.
Stig Yon Bahr
Born Born1939; has1939; workedhas withworked withthe Parliamentarythe Ombudsman Parliamentaryand Ombudsman inand inthethe SwedishCabinet Office and ministries, inter alia as assistantunder- secretary in the Ministry of Finance; appointed Judge in the Kammarräuen(Administrative Courtof Appeal), Gothenburg,in 1981 and Justiceof the Regeringsränen(Supreme Administrative Court) in 1985;has collaboratd on a largenumber of official reporß, mainly on the subject of tax legislation and accounting; has been irter alia Chairmanof the Committeeon,Inflation-Adjusted Taxation of Income, Chairmanof Chairman theof Accountingthe CommineeAccountingand Comminee Specialand Rapporteur Special for Rapporteur forthethe Commia@ on Rules for Taxation of Private Company Owners; has also been Chairmanof the Accounting StandardsBoard and Member of the Board of the National Courts Administrationand the Board of the Financial SupervisoryAuthority; has publisheda large number of articles, rnainly on the subjectof tax legislation;Judge at the Court of Justicesince 7 October2000.
64 Antonio Tizzano
Born 1940; various teaching assignmentsat Italian universities; Legal Counsel to Italy's Permanent Representation to the European Communities (1984- 1992); Member of the Bar at the Court of Cassation and other higher courts; Member of the Italian delegation in international negotiations and at intergovernmental conferences including those on the Single European Act and the Maastricht Treaty; various editorial positions; Member of the Independent Group of Experts appointed to examine the finances of the European Commission (1999); Professor of European Law, Director of the Institute of International and European Law (University of Rome); Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 2000.
Jos6 Narciso da Cunha Rodrigues
Born 1940: various offices within the judiciary $964-1977); Governmentassignments to carry out andcoordinate studies on reform of thejudicial system;Government Agent to the EuropeanCommission of Human Rights and the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights (1980- 1984);Expert on the HumanRights Steering Committee of the Council of Europe(1980-1985); Member of the ReviewCommission of the Criminal Codeand the Codeof Criminal Procedure;Attorney General (1984-2000);member of the supervisorycommittee of the European Union anti-fraudoffice (OLAF) (1999-2000);Judge at the Court of Justicesince 7 October2000.
Christiaan Willem Anton Timmermans
Born l94l; Legal Secretaryat the Court of Justiceof the European Communities(1966-1969); official of theEuropean Commission (1969- 1977):Doctor in Law (Universityof Leiden); Professorof European Law at the University of Groningen(1977-1989); Deputy Justiceat ArnhemCourt of Appeal;various editorial positions; Deputy Director- Generalat the Legal Service of the EuropeanCommission (1989- 2000); Professorof EuropeanLaw at the University of Amsterdam; Judgeat the Court of Justicesince 7 October2000.
65 Leendert Adrie Geelhoed
Born 1942; ResearchAssistant, University of Utrecht (l97Fl97l); Legal Secretaryat the Court of Justiceof the EuropeanCommunities (1971-ß7o; Senior Adviser, Ministry of Justice (1975-1982); Memberof the Advisory Councilon GovernmentPolicy (1983-1990X various teaching assignments; Secretary-General, Ministry of EconomicAffairs (1990-L997);Secretary-General, Ministry of General Affairs (1997-2W); AdvocateGeneral at the Court of Justicesince 7 October2000.
Christine Stix-Hackl
Born 1957; Doctor of Laws (University of Vienna), postgraduate studiesin EuropeanLaw at the College of Europe, Bruges; member of the Austrian Diplomatic Service (from 1982); expert on European Union matters in the office of the Legal Adviser to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (198a-1988); Legal Service of the European 'Legal Commission(1989); Head of the Service- EU' in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1992-2Cf,fJ.,Minister Plenipotentiary); participated in inthe thenegotiations onnegotiations onthe theEuropean EconomicEuropean EconomicArea Areaand andon on thethe accessionof the Republicof Austria to the EuropeanUnion; Agent of the Republic of Austria at the Court of Justice of the European Communities; Austrian Consul-Generalin Zurich (2000); teaching assignmentsand publications; Advocate General at the Court of Justice since7 October2000.
Roger Grass
Born 1948; Graduateof the Institut d'önrdespolitiques, Paris, and awarded higher degree in public law; Deputy Procureur de la R6publiqueattached to the Tribunal de grande instance,Versailles; Principal Administrator at the Court of Justice; Secretary-Generalin the office of the ProcureurG6n6ral attached to the Court of Appeal, Paris; PrivateOffice of the Minister for Justice;Legal Secretaryto the Presidentof the Court of Justice;Registrar at the Court of Justicesince 10 February1994.
66 2, ürder of precedence
from I .IanuArvvv to 6 Octoher 2001
G.C. RONRIGUEZ IGLESIAS, PrCSidENt C. GULMANN, Presidentof the Third and Sixth Chambers A.M. LA PERGOLA, Presidentof the Fourth and Fifth Chambers D. RUIZ-JARABO COLOMER, First AdvocateGeneral M. WATHELET, Presidentof the First Chamber V. SKOURIS, Presidentof the SecondChamber F.G. JACOBS,Äclvocate General D.A.O. ED$/ARD, Judge J*-P.PUISSOCHET, Judge P. LEGER, AdvocateGeneral P. JANI{, Judge L. SEVÖN, Judge R. SCHINTGEN, Judge S. ALBER, AdvocateGeneral J. I\{ISCHO, AdvocateGeneral F. MACKEN, Judge N. COLNERIC, Juclge S. von BAHR, Judge A. TIZZANO, AdvocateGeneral J.I{. CUNHA RODRIGUES,Judge C.W.A. TIMMERMANS, Judge L.A. GEELHOED, AdvocateGeneral C. STIX-HACKL, Advocate General
R. GRASS, Registrar
67 from 7 Octoberto 3L December200L
G.C. RODRIGUEZIGLESIAS, President P. JANN, Presidentof the First andFifth Chambers S. ALBER, First AdvocateGeneral F. MACKEN, Presidentof the Third andSixth Chambers N. COLNERIC, Presidentof the SecondChamber S. von BAHR, Presidentof the FourthChamber F.G. JACOBS,Advocate General C. GULMANN, Judge D.A.O. EDWARD,Judge A.M. LA PERGOLA,Judge J.-P.PUISSOCHET, Judge P. LEGER,Advocate General L. SEVÖN,Judge D. RUIZ-JARABOCOLOMER, Advocate General M. WATHELET, Judge R. SCHINTGEN,Judge J. MISCHO,Advocate General V. SKOURIS,Judge A. TIZZANO, AdvocateGeneral J.N. CUNHA RODRIGUES,Judge C.W.A. TIMMERMANS,Judge L.A. GEELHOED,Advocate General C. STIX-HACKL, AdvocateGeneral
R. GRASS,Registrar
68 3. Former Members of the Court of Justice
PILOTTI Massimo,Judge (1952-1958), Presidenr from 1952to 1958 SERRARENSPetrus Josephus Servatius, Judge (1952-1958) RIESE Otto, Judge(1952-1963) DELVAUX Louis,Judge (1952-1967) RUEFF Jacques,Judge (1952-1959 and 1960-1962) HAMMES CharlesL6on, Judge(1952-1967), President from 1964to 1967 VAN KLEFFENS Adrianus,Judge (1952-1955) LAGRANGE Maurice, AdvocateGeneral (1952-1964) ROEMER Karl, AdvocateGeneral (1953-L973) ROSSIRino, Judge(1958-1964) DONNERAndreas Matthias, Judge (1955-1979), President from 1958to 1964 CATALANO Nicola,Judge (1958 -1962) TRABUCCHI Alberto, Judge (1962-1972), then Advocate General (re73-1976) LECOURT Robert,Judge (1962-1976), President from 1967to 1976 STRAUSSWalter, Judge (1963-1970) MONACO Riccardo,Judge (1964-1976) GAND Joseph,Advocate General (1964-L970) MERTENSDE WILMARSJosse J., Judge(1967-L984), President from 1980 to to19841984 PESCATOREPierre, Judge(1967-1985) KUTSCHERHans, Judge (1970-1980), Presidenr from 1976to 1980 DUTHEILLET DE LAMOTHE Alain Louis, AdvocateGeneral (L970-L972) MAYRAS Henri, AdvocateGeneral (L972-L9SL) O'DALAIGH Cearbhall,Judge (1.973-1974) SORENSENMax, Judge(1973-1979) MACKENZIE STUART AlexanderJ., Judge(1973-1988), President from 1984to 1988 WARNER Jean-Pierre,Advocate General (1973-1981) REISCHL Gerhard,Advocate General (1,973-L981) O'KEEFFEAindrias, Judge (1975-19S5) CAPOTORTIFrancesco, Judge (1976), then Advocate General (1976-19S2) BOSCOGiacinto, Judge (1976-19SS) TOUFFAIT Adolphe,Judge (197 6-1982) KOOPMANSThymen, Judge (1979-1990) DUE Ole, Judge(L979-I994), President from 1988to 1994 EVERLINGUlrich, Judge(1980-1983) CHLOROSAlexandros, Judge (1931-1982)
69 Sir GordonSLYNN, AdvocateGeneral (1931-1988), then Judge (1988-1992) ROZESSimone, Advocate General (1981-1984) VERLOREN van THEMAAT Pieter,Advocate General (1981-1986) GREVISSEFernand, Judge (1981-1982 and 1988-1994) BAHLMANN Kai, Judge(1982-1988) MANCINI G. Federico, Advocate General (1982-1988)'then Judge (1988-1999) GALMOT Yves,Judge (1982-1988) KAKOURIS Constantinos,Judge (1983-1994> LENZ Carl Otto, AdvocateGeneral (1984-1997) DARMON Marco, AdvocateGeneral (1984-1994) JOLIET Ren6,Judge (1984-1995) O'HIGGINSThomas Francis, Judge (1985-1991) SCHOCKWEILERFernand, Judge (1985-1996) Da CRUZ VILAQA Jos6Luis, AdvocateGeneral (1986-1988) DIEZDE VELASCOManuel, Judge (1988-1994) ZULEEG Manfred, Judge(1988-1994) VAN GERVEN Walter, AdvocateGeneral (1988-1994) TESAUROGiuseppe, Advocate General (1988-1998) ELMER Michael Bendik, AdvocateGeneral (L994-1997) IOANNOU Ktateros,Judge (1997-1999) De CARVALHO MOITINHO de ALMEIDA Jos6Carlos, Judge (1986-2000) KAPTEYN Paul JoanGeorge, Judge (1990-2000) COSMASGeorges, Advocate General (1994-2000) HIRSCH Günter,Judge (1994-2000) RAGNEMALM Hans,Judge (1995-2000) FENNELLY Nial, AdvocateGeneral (1995-2000) SAGGIOAntonio, AdvocateGeneral (1998-2000)
- Presidents
PILOTTI Massimo(1952-1958) DONNER AndreasMatthias (1958- 1964) HAMMES CharlesLEon (19&-1967) LECOURT Robert(1967-1976) KUTSCIIERHans (1976-1980) MERTENSDE WILMARS JosseJ. (1980-1984) MACKENZIE STUART AlexanderJohn (1984-1988) DUE Ole (1988-1994)
TOTO - Registrars
VAN HOUTTEAlbert (1953- 1982) HEIM Paul(1982-1988) GIRAUD Jean-Guy(1988- 1994)
7T7T
Chapter II
The Court of first Instance of the EuropeünCommunities
A- Proceedingsof the Court of First Instance in 2001 by Mr Bo Vesterdorf, Presidentof the Court of First Instance
. A featureof the statisticsrelating to thejudicial activity of the Court of First Instanceof the EuropeanCommunities in 2001 is their consistency with thoseof the previousyear.
In generalthe numberof casesregistered, cases determined and cases pending was.to within a few cases.the sameas in 2000.
In 2001, 327 caseswere broughtbefore the Court of First Instance.tThat figure is lower than that for 2000, which was 387, chiefly becausethere were no seriesof cases.
The numberof casesdetermined, excluding special forms of procedure,was 325 (or 216 after the joinder of cases)- comparedwith 327 in 2000-. It is interestingthat the number of casesdecided in the field of intellectual propertyhas increasedsignificantly, from sevenin 2000 to 30 the following yeat.
The number of judgmentsdelivered by Chambersof five Judgeswas 14 (comparedwith24 in 2000 and 39 in 1999),while 96 judgments(82 in 2000 and74 in 1999)were deliveredby Chambersof threeJudges. The Court of First Instancesitting as a singlejudge delivered 10 judgments (11 in 2000).
No casewas referredto the Court sitting in plenarysession, nor was an AdvocateGeneral designated in any case.
There was again a significantnumber of applicationsfor interim relief: 37 applicationswere made (43 in 2000and 38 in 1999)and 41 setsof proceedings for interim relief were disposedof (45 in 2000).
The total numberof casespending at the end of the year, excludingspecial forms of procedure,came to 786 (comparedwith 784 in 2000).
That tigure does not include the 18 specialforms of procedure,inter alia applications for legal aid and taxationof costs.
75 The averageduration of proceedingsfell from23.5 monthsin 2000 to 19.5 months.
. On I February2001 amendmentsto the Rules of Procedureof the Court of First Instanceintended to expediteproceedings (OJ 2000 L322,p. 4) cameinto force. It is still too soon to assessthe practical impact of those amendmentson the averagelength of proceedings. However, it can be recordedthat12 applicationsfor expeditedprocedure were lodged in 2001and that 2 of themwere grantedas at 31 Decemberof that year.
The ConferenceThe of Conference ofRepresentatives of Representatives ofthe Governmentsthe of Governments ofthe Memberthe StatesStates Member adopteda Decisionon 6 June2001 appointingmembers of the Court of First Instancefor theperiod 1 September2001 to 31 August2007. By thatdecision theterms of officeof JudgesJ.D. Cooke,N.J. Forwood,R. Garcfa-Valdecasas y Fernflndez.P. Lindh, P. Mengozziand J. Pirrung were renewed.
The representativesof the governmentsof the MemberStates also appointed Mr HubertLegal a memberof the Courtto succeedJudge Potocki whose term of office had cometo an end.
Mr Vesterdorfwas re-electedPresident of the Court of First Instancefor the period from 20 September2001 to 3 August2004.
Developmentsin Developments inthe thecase-law 22 case-law
The principal advancesin the case-lawin 2001 are set out below, the cases groupedinto proceedingsconcerning the legality of measures(I), into which groupthe vastmajority of the casesdecided by the Court of First Instancefall, actionsfor damages0I) and applicationsfor interim relief (III).
To assistthe reader, articles of the EC and ECSC Treatiesare cited in the version in force since I May 1999.
76 r. Proceedings concerning the legality of measures
A. Admissibility of actions for annulment under Article 230 EC
The developmentsin the case-lawconcern the conceptof a reviewableact, possessionof a legal interestin bringing proceedingsand standingto bring proceedings.
1. Concept of a reviewable act
It is well-establishedcase-law that any measurewhich producesbinding legal effects such as to affect the interestsof an applicantby bringing about a distinctchange in his legal positionis an act or a decisionwhich may be the subjectof an actionfor annulmentunder Article 230 EC.
. In its judgmentof 18 September2001 in CaseT-1I2199 M6 and Others v Commission(not yet publishedin the ECR), the Court of First Instanceheld that any nafural or legal person may bring an action for annulmentof a decisionof a Communityinstitution which doesnot allow, in whole or in part, a clear and preciserequest from that personwhich falls within the competenceof that institution. In sucha situationthe total or partial rejectionof the requestproduces binding legal effectscapable of affectingthe interestsof its maker. In that case it held that the operativepart of a Commissiondecision which grantednegative clearance (relating to a clauseof the notified agreement)and an exemption(relating to other clausesof that agreement)under the competitionrules for only part of the duration of the notifiedagreement produced, as regardsthe partiesto that agreement,binding legal effectscapable of affectingtheir interests.
. In the caseof actsor decisionswhich areprepared in severalstages, including on completionof an internal procedure,in principle only those measuresdefinitively laying down the position of the institution on the conclusionof that procedure,and not intermediatemeasures intended for preparationof the final decision,constitute reviewable acts.
. In its order of 20 March 2001 in CaseT-59/00 CompagniaPonuale Pietro Chiesav Commission[20017 ECR II-1019, the Court of First Instance recalledthat an institutionwhich is empoweredto find that therehas been an infringementand inflict a sanctionin respectof it andto whichprivate persons may makecomplaint, as is the casewith the Commissionin competitionlaw,
77 necessarilyadopts a measureproducing legal effectswhen it terminatesan investigationfollowing sucha complaint. In this caseit was held that an act cannot be regardedas terminating such a procedure if, in that act, the Commissionis merelyinforming the personconcerned of the stateof progress in the procedureinitiated againsta Member State- for the purposesof establishingwhether or not there has been a breach of Article 82 EC in conjunctionwith Article 86 EC - and giving its preliminary observations regarding its investigation of the latter. Such an act constitutesan intermediarymeasure.
. In CaseT-186/98 Inpesca v CommissionI200ll ECR II-557 (under appeal,Case C-170l01 P), it washeld that, if a requestfor reconsiderationby a Communityinstitution of a decisionwhich hasbecome definitive is basedon substantialnew facts, the institutionconcerned is boundto comply with that request. After reconsideringthe decision,the institution must take a new decision,the legalityof which may, wherenecessary, be challengedbefore the Communityjudicature. If, on the other hand, the requestfor reconsideration is not basedon suchfacts, the institutionis not requiredto complywith it. It follows that an action brought againsta decisionrefusing to reconsidera decisionwhich hasbecome definitive will be declaredadmissible if it appears thatthe requestis actuallybased on substantialnew facts. On the otherhand, if it appearsthat the requestis not basedon suchfacts, an actionagainst the decision refusing to reconsiderit will be declared inadmissible. In its judgment,the Court of First Instancepointed out thata reconsideration,based on substantialnew facts, of a previousdecision which has becomefinal is governedby the generalprinciples of administrativelaw, as defined in the case-lawof the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance,and went on to tofind thatfind thethat applicantthe had applicant nothad establishednot the established existencethe of existence ofany factsany offacts ofthatthat naturewhich would imply an obligationto reconsiderthe decisionrejecting its requestfor financialaid.
. . It Itis alsois settledalso case-law settled that case-law anthat actionan foraction forannulment of annulment ofan actan whichwhichact merelyconfirms another decision which hasbecome definitive is inadmissible. The conceptof a confirmatoryact has beendeveloped in case-lawinter alia in order to prevent the bringing of an action which has the effect of recommencingthe time-limitsfor bringing an actiononce they haveexpired. Where thereWherehas there beenhas no been suchno circumvention such of circumvention theof time-limitsthe fortime-limits bringingfor ananbringing action, the Communityjudicature has on someoccasions acknowledged the admissibility of claims made against both a confirmed decision and a confirmatorydecision in the sameaction. However,in its order of 25 October 200I in CaseT-354100 M6v Commission(not yet publishedin the ECR), the
78 Court of First Instanceheld that this solutioncannot be appliedwhere the two decisionsare contestedin two separateactions and the applicantcan makehis pointof view andput his argumentsin theaction concerning the first decision.
. The first paragraphof Article 230 EC providesthat the Community judicatureis to reviewthe legality of 'actsof theEuropean Parliament intended to producelegal effbcts in regard to third parties'. By their action for annulment,several Members of the EuropeanParliament, the Front national and the Lista EmmaBonino disputedthe legality of the act of 14 September 1999whereby the Parliamentdecided to adoptthe generalinterpretation of Rule 29(1) of its Rules of Procedure3 proposedby the Committee on ConstitutionalAffairs andthe view expressedby it on the conformitywith that Rule of the statementof formationof the 'TechnicalGroup of Independent Members- Mixed Group' (TDI Group) and to declarethe non-existenceex tuncof thatgroup.
According to the Court of First Instancesuch an act is open to challenge beforethe Communityjudicature if the legaleffects it producesgo beyondthe internalorganisation of the work of the Parliament(udgment of 2 October 2001 in JoinedCases T-222199, T-327199 and T-329199Martinez and Others v Parliament,not yet publishedin the ECR (underappeal, Cases C-486101P and C-488/01P)). In that regard,it held, as a preliminarypoint, that while the purposeof the rulesof procedureof a Communityinstitution is to organise the internalfunctioning of its servicesin the interestsof good administration and the rules laid down havetherefore as their essentialpurpose to ensurethe smoothconduct of the procedure,that alonedoes not precludean act of the Parliamentsuch as that mentionedabove from havinglegal effectsin regard to third partiesand thus from beingcapable of forming the subject-matterof an action for annulment. As regardsthe caseunder discussionthe Court of First Instanceheld, first, that the act of 14 September1999 affects the conditionsunder which the parliamentaryfunctions of the Membersconcerned are exercisedinter alia becausethey cannotform a political group, and thus produceslegal effects in their regard, It went on to observethat, as representativesof the peoplesof the Statesbrought together in the Community, such Membersmust, in regardto an act emanatingfrom the Parliamentand
Rule 29(1) ('Formation of political groups')of the Rulesof Procedureof the European Parliament, in thn version in force as from 1 May 1999 (OJ 1999 LZA?, p. 1), 'Members provides: may form themselvesinto groups according to their political affinities'.
79 producinglegal effects as regardsthe conditionsunder which the electoral mandateis mandate exercised,is be exercised, regardedbe as regarded thirdas thirdparties withinparties withinthe meaningthe of meaning ofthethe first paragraphof Article 230 EC.
2. 2. Legal interestLegal ininterest inbringing bringingproceedingsproceedings
While a legal interestin bringing proceedingsis not expresslyrequired by Article 230 EC, it is none the lessa conditionwhich must be satisfiedif an actionfor annulmentbrought by a naturalor legalperson is to be admissible. Suchan interestexists only if the annulmentof the measureis of itself capable of having legal consequences(see inter alia judgmentsof the Court of First Instancein CaseT-188/99 Euroalliages v CommissionQ00ll ECR II-1757, andof 22 NovemberZ00l in CaseT-9198 Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Rffinertev Commission,not yet published in the ECR). The interest in bringing proceedingsfor annulmentis assessedas at the datewhen the actionis brought (udgment in(udgment inMitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie Mitteldeutsche v Erdoel-Raffinerie vCommission) and Commission) theand naturalnaturalthe or legalperson who bringsthat action must have a personalinterest in bringing proceedings.
According to the Court of First Instance,the latter criterion is not fulfilled where anwhere actionan broughtaction bybrought bya legala personlegal seekspersonthe seeks annulmentthe of annulment ofa decisiondecision a addressedto addressed anotherto person another refusing person that refusing personthat access personto access documents.to In documents. Insuchsuch a acase, thecase, theapplicant -applicant - here thehere theparent companyparent ofcompany ofthe theaddressee of addressee ofthethe contesteddecision contested- decision - cannot be cannot consideredbe to considered tohave anhave interestan ininterest inseeking thethe seeking annulmentof such a decision,since it does not affect its own rights. The Court held that the applicantdid not itself make a requestfor accessto documentsand that the possibility of making such a requestwas not in question(order of 30 April 2001 in CaseT-41l00 British AmericanTobacco International(Holdings) v Commission[2001] ECR II-1301).
3. Standing to bring proceedings
The fourth paragraphof Article 230 EC providesthat 'any naturalor legal personmay ... instituteproceedings against a decisionaddressed to thatperson or againsta decisionwhich, althoughin the form of a regulationor a decision addressedto addressed anotherto person, another is person, ofis directof anddirect individunland concernindividunlto concern theto former' the former'..
80 In 2001 the Court of First Instancedismissed as inadmissiblefor lack of standingto bring proceedingsseveral actions seeking annulment either of decisionswhich werenot addressedto the applicantsor of actsof a legislative nature. In somecases the actionwas dismissed by judgment(judgments of the Court of First Instancein JoinedCases T-38/99 to T-50/99Sociedade Agricola dos Arinhos and Othersv Commissionl200ll ECR II-585, in CaseT-69196 HamburgerHafen- und Lagerhausand Othersv Commission[2001] ECR Il-1037, in CaseT-166/99 Andres de Dios and Othersv Council[2001] ECR II-1857 and in JoinedCases T-198195, T-171196, T-230197, T-t74198 and T-225199Comafrica and Dole FreshFruit Europev Commission[2001] ECR Il-1975), and in others,by order.
(a)(a) Direct concern
The conditionthat an individualmust be directly concernedby the contested Communitymeasure means that the measuremust directly affect his legal situationand leave no discretionto the addresseesof that measurewho are entrustedwith the task of implementingit, suchimplementation being purely automatic and resulting from the Community rules alone without the application of other intermediaterules. The same applies where the opportunityfor addresseesof the measurenot to give effectto the Community measureis purely theoreticaland their intentionto act in conformitywith it is not in doubt.
. Therewas a finding thatthe legal situationof a traderwas not directly affectedin the order in CaseT-244100 CoiIIte Teoranta v Commission120017 ECR II-1275. Accordingto the Court of First Instance,a traderis not directly concernedby a Commission decision addressedto the Member States excludingfrom Communityfinancing, on the groundof failure to complywith the Communityrules, variousitems of expenditureon the part of the paying agencieswhich were declaredunder the EuropeanAgricultural Guidanceand GuaranteeFund (EAGGF), includingthose relating to aid paid to that trader. The decisionconcerns only the financialrelations between the EAGGF andthe Member Statesand does not include any provision requiring the national bodiesconcerned to recover the sums indicatedfrom their recipients. Its properexecution requires only that the MemberState concerned refund to the EAGGFthe sumscorresponding to theexpenditure excluded from Community financing. In thosecircumstances, reimbursement of the Communityaid paid to thattrader in the financialyears concerned would be the directconsequence, not of that decision,but of the actionwhich would be takenfor that purpose by the competentauthorities on the basisof their nationallegislation in order
B1B1 to fulfil obligationsunder the Communityrules on the subject. In that regard, it cannot be excludedthat particular circumstancesmay lead the national authoritiesconcerned to decidenot to claim repaymentof the aid grantedfrom the recipientand themselves to bearthe burdenof reimbursingto the EAGGF the sumswhich they had wrongly consideredthemselves authorised to pay.
. On the otherhand, in the field of Stateaid, the Court of First Instance held that an undertakingin receipt of an investmentpremium was directly concernedby a Commissiondecision addressed to a MemberState declaring incompatiblewith the commonmarket a provision of that State'sannual tax law prolongingthe period within which the investmentproject had to have beenexecuted in order to benefit from the premium, sincethe obligationto repealthat provision contained in the decisionnecessarily had the consequence of requiring the nationalauthorities to recover the amountof the premium from thefrom undertakingthe concerned undertaking(udgment concerned in(udgment Mitteldeutschein ErdoehRffinerieErdoehRffinerie Mitteldeutsche v Commission,cited above).
(b)(b) Individual concern
Since the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case 25162 Plaumann v CommisssionU9631ECR 95, it is settledcaseJaw that personsother than thoseto whom a decisionis addressedmay claim to be individuallyconcerned within the meaningof the fourth paragraphof Article 230 EC if that decision affectstheir legal positionby reasonof certainattributes peculiar to them or by reasonof a factual situation which differentiatesthem from all other personsand distinguishes them individuallyin the sameway as the addressee. The questionwhether that condition is fulfilled hasbeen specifically addressed in a numberof decisions,only someof which are of note. 4
For an assessmentof individualconcern, see also the ordersof the Court of First Instancein JoinedCases T-II2|00 and T-122100lberotam and Othersv Commission [2001]ECR ll-97, in CaseT-49l00 lposeca v Commission[2001] ECR II-163, in Case T-215l00 La Conquestev Commission[2001] ECR II-181 (under appeal,Case C-151/01P) andthe orderof 11 September2001 in CaseT-27A/99 Tessa and Tessas v Council(not yet publishedin the ECR, underappeal, Case C-461l01 P); and the judgmentsin Martinezand Othersv Parliament,cited above, Comafrica and Dole Fresh Frait Europev Commission,cited above, the judgments of 19 September2001 in Case T-58/99Mukand and Othersv Council,and of 6 December2001 in CaseT-43198 EmesaSugar v Council,not yet publishedin the ECR.
82 . Portuguesebreeders of fightingbulls sought annulment of a provision of a Commissiondecision prohibiting them from dispatchingsuch bulls from Portugalto Spain and France for cultural and sportingevents. 5 However, since the applicantsfailed to establishthat the contestedmeasure was of individualconcern to them, their action was dismissedas inadmissibleby judgmentof 7 February2001 in SociedadeAgricola dos Arinhos and Others v Commission,cited above. In that regard, the Court of First Instanceheld that the fact that the bulls bred by the exporterswere intendedto fight at culturaland sporting events, that the expofi andtransportation of thoseanimals were subjectto specificrules which ensurestrict control of all the animals exportedand that thoseexporters were enteredin herd booksof fighting bulls did not constitutea particularsituation differentiating the applicants,in respect of the contesteddecision, from any other breeder or exporter of bovine animalsaffected by the prohibitionon dispatchlaid down by that decision. It also held that the decisionconcerned them only by reasonof their objective statusas exporters of bovineanimals, by the sametoken as all other operators exercisingthe sameactivity of dispatchingfrom the MemberState concerned. Moreover, the fact that a personintervenes, in one way or another,in the procedureleading to the adoptionof a Communitymeasure is not suchas to differentiatehim from any other personin respectof the measurein question except where the Community legislation applicable grants him certain proceduralsafeguards. However, that is not the casewith the provisionsof Directives891662 and 9A/425 concerning veterinary and zootechnicalchecks applicablein intra-Communitytrade. 6
. By orderof 19 September2001 in JoinedCases T-54l00 and T-73100 Federaciönde Cofradiasde Pescadoresde Guipüzcoaand Othersv Council (not yet published in the ECR), the Court of First Instance declared inadmissibleactions for annulmentbrought by owners of fishing vessels establishedin Spainagainst part nine of Annex I D to Regulation(EC) No
CommissionDecision 98/653/EC of 18Novemher 1998 concerning emergency meäsures madenecessary by the occurrenceof bovine spüngiformencephalopathy tn Portugal (OJ 1998L 311,p.23),
Council Directive 901425/EECof 26 June 1990concerning veterinary and zootechnical checksapplicable in intra-Communitytrade in certain live animalsand products with a view to the completionof the internal rnarket{OJ 1990 L 224, p.29), and Council Directive 89/662|EEC of 11 December 1989 concerningveterinary checks in intra- Community trade with a view to the completionaf the internal market (OJ 1989 L 395, p. I 3).
B3 27421L999,7which, by way of exchangesof catchquotas between the French Republic andRepublic theand Portuguesethe Republic, Portuguese allowedRepublic, 3allowed 0003 tonnes000 of tonnes ofthe anchovyanchovythe quota ofquota of5 5220 220tonnes allocatedtonnes toallocated toPortugal inPortugal inICES ICESzones D(zones D(and Xand Xandand CECAF arca34.L.1 to be fishedin the watersof ICES zone VIII, which is under theunder sovereigntythe or sovereignty withinor withinthe jurisdiction the ofjurisdiction ofthe Frenchthe Republic.French 8Republic. TheThe8 applicantswere not affectedby the contestedprovision, which is of general application, byapplication, byreason of reason ofcertain attributescertain peculiar attributes topeculiar tothem orthem byor byreason of reason ofaa factualsituation which differentiatedthem, as regardsthat provision, from all otherpersons. In particular,when it adoptedthat provision,the Councilwas underno obligationto takeaccount of the particularsituation of the applicants.
Despitethe inadmissibilityof the aetionsfor annulment,the Court of First Instancepointed Instance outpointed thatout thethat contestedthe measure contestedcould measure alwayscould bealways calledbe intointocalled questionby the personsconcerned if they consideredthemselves the victims of damagecaused directly by that measureunder the procedurefor non- contractualliability laid down in Articles 235 EC and 288 EC. It concluded that the generalprinciple of Communitylaw accordingto which any person whoserights and freedomshave beeninfringed has the right to an effective remedy,which is inspiredby Article 13 of the EuropeanConvention on the Protection Protectionof ofHuman HumanRights Rights and andFundamental FreedomsFundamental (ECHR)Freedoms (ECHR)of of44 November1950, was respectedin this case.
. . The caseThe leading case toleading tothe judgmentthe ofjudgment of27 27June 2001 June in2001 Andresin deAndres DiosDiosde and andOthers vOthers vCouncil, Council,cited citedabove, gaveabove, thegave theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance thetheInstance oppornrnityto observethat the term 'decision' in the fourth paragraphof Article 23OEChas the technicalmeaning employed in Article 249 EC. Since it itapplies to applies toobjectively determinedobjectively situations determinedand situations producesand legal produces effectslegal withwitheffects respectto categoriesof personsenvisaged generally and in the abstract, Council Decision l999l307lBC of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangementsfor arrangements forthe integrationthe ofintegration ofthe Schengenthe Secretariat Schengeninto Secretariat theinto GeneralGeneral the Secretariatof the Council (OJ 1999 L ltg, p. 49), despitebeing entitled a 'decision', is an act of a legislativenature. Turning to the questionof the
Council Regulation(EC) No 2742/1999of 17 December1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunitiesand associated conditions for certainfish stocksand groups of fish stocks,applicable in Communitywaters and, for Communityvessels, in waterswhere limitationsin catchare required,and amendingRegulation (EC) No 66198(OJ 1999L 341,p. 1).
The ICES Zone is the statisticalzone identified by the InternationalCouncil for the explorationof the sea. CECAF is the acronymfor the Fishery Committeefor the EasternCentral Atlantic.
84 applicants'standing to seekannulment of the act- of which theywere not the addressees- the Court of First Instanceheld that they were not individually concernedby that act. In responseto the argumentthat they were individually distinguishedas a result of the Council's failure to establisha recruitment procedureconsistent with the relevantprovisions of the Staff Regulationsof officials of the EuropeanCommunities, in which they could havetaken part, the Court of First Instanceheld thatsuch an argument,by which the applicants complainedthat the institution deprived them of procedural rights, was irrelevantfor the purposeof assessingthe admissibilityof an actionbrought againsta legislativemeasure unless the institution'schoice was shown to constitutean abuseof procedure. However, no evidenceof this had been adducedin this case. It alsopointed out that for the existenceof a closedclass of individualsto be a relevantfactor distinguishingthe personsin question individually in relation to a legislative act, the institution adopting the contestedact must havebeen under an obligationto take account,at the time of adoptionof the act, of the particularcircumstances of thoseindividuals. As no evidencewas adducedwhich would supporta finding that the applicants were individuallyconcerned, their actionwas dismissedas inadmissible.
. In the field of Stateaid, it is clear from the judgmentin Hamburger Hafen- undHafen- l^agerhausund and l^agerhaus andOthers v Others vCommission, cited Commission, above,cited thatabove, athat partypartya mustbe a competitorof the beneficiaryof Stateaid to havestanding as a party concernedwithin the meaningof Article 88(2) EC. As it was not in direct competitionwith the beneficiaryof the aid, the applicantcompany was not deemedto havestanding as a party concernedand its actionfor annulmentof the Commissiondecision approving State aid without initiating the formal assessmentprocedure provided for by that provision was declared inadmissible.
However,the Court of First Instanceruled admissiblean actionfor annulment, broughtby one of the beneficiariesof a generalaid scheme,of a Commission decisiondeclaring a provisionof a financelaw incompatiblewith the common market and ordering recovery from undertakingsin receipt of aid granted under that provision. In the judgmentin MitteldeutscheErdoel-Rffinerie v Commission,cited above,the applicantwas held to be individuallyconcerned by the contesteddecision. The Court of First Instanceobserved that several factors,demonstrating that accountwas specificallytaken of the applicant's investmentproject, placed it in a situationwhich differentiatedit from all other operators.
B5 . Severalcases gave the Court ofFirst Instancean opportunityto recall the conditionsunder which a professionalassociation is deemedto have standingto bring an action under Article 230 EC (orders in lberotarn and Others Othersv v Commission andCommission andFederaciön deFederaciön deCofradtas deCofradtas dePescadores dedePescadores Guipüzcoaand Othersv Council,cited above;judgmentin HamburgerHafen- undLa.gerhaus and Othersv Commission,cited above). Noneof the applicant associationscould be consideredto representone or severalof its members (following the solution devisedin the judgment in Joined CasesT-447193, T-448193andT-449193 AITEC and Others v Commissiontl995lECR II-1971) or to havethe capacityof negotiatorwithin the meaningof the judgmentsof the Court of Justicein JoinedCases 67185, 68/85 and 70/85 Vander Kooy and Othersv Commission[1988] ECR 219 and CaseC-313190 CIRFS and Others v Commission11993) ECR I-1125.
4. Time-limit for bringing an action
In its order of 14 February2001 in CaseT-3/00 Pitsiorlasv Counciland ECB t200U ECR II-717 (underappeal, Case C-193/01 P), the Court againmade the point that an excusableerror may, in exceptionalcircumstances, have the effect of not making the applicantout of time. It pointedout that this is so, in particular,when the conductof the institutionconcerned has been,either aloneor to a decisiveextent, such as to give rise to pardonableconfusion in the mind of a party acting in good faith and exercisingall the diligence requiredof a normally experiencedperson. However,in this case,since the circumstancesput forward by the applicantwere not regardedas exceptional circumstancesgiving rise to an excusableerror, the actionfor annulment,to the extent that it impugned the Council's decision, was dismissed as inadmissible.
B. Review of legality
1. Competition rules applicable to undertakings
The case-lawThe on case-law competitionon rules competition applicablerules toapplicable toundertakingJ was undertakingJ developeddevelopedwas by judgmentsconcerning the rules of the EC Treaty and the ECSCTreaty.
The lessonsto be drawn from the case-lawin 2001 cover a wide variety of issues: the scope of the Community competition rules; agreementsand concertedpractices prohibited by Article 81 EC and Article 65 CS; abusesof
B6B6 dominantposition prohibited by Article 82 EC; observanceof the rights of the defence;examination of complaintsof infringementsof the competitionrules; and determiningthe applicablepenalties.
(a) Scopeof the Community competition rules
(a.1) Scoperattone mnteriae
Do the ruleswhich organisethe exerciseof a liberalprofession fall within the scoperatione nwteriae of Article 81 EC? That is, in essence,the questionon which the Court of First Instanceruled in its judgment in Case T-l44lgg Institut des mnndatairesagröös v Commissionl2A0\ ECR II-1087, holding that ruleswhich organisethe exerciseof a professioncannot be consideredto fall as a matter of principle outsidethe scopeof Article S1(1)EC merely 'rules becausethey are classifiedas of professionalconduct' by the competent bodies. In soholding it endorsesthe approachtaken by the commissionin the e decision which promptedthe action. It follows that an examinationon a case-by-casebasis is essentialin order to assessthe validity ofsuch rulesunder thatprovision of the Treaty, in particularby takingaccount of their impacton the freedomof actionof the membersof theprofession and on its organisation and also on the recipientsof the servicesin question.
In this casethat approachyielded real resultsas the Court of First Instance confirmed,on one point, the Commission'sfinding that a simpleprohibition, under a code of conduct, of comparativeadvertising between professional representativesrestricts competition in thatit limits the ability of moreefficient professional representativesto develop their services. This has the consequence,inter alia, that the clienteleof eachprofessional representative is crystallisedwithin a nationalmarket.
CommissionDecision 19991267 lEC of 7 April 1999relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article t81l of the EC Treaty(IV136.147 EPI codeof conducr)(OJ 1999L 106, p. 14).
87 (a.2) Ruleof reason
In an actionfor annulmentof a Commissiondecision of 3 March 1999t0 the applicant companies(M6tropole t6l6vision (M6), France Töl6com, Suez- Lyonnaisedes eaux and Töldvisionfrangaise I SA (TFl)) submittedthat the applicationof a 'rule of reason'would have shown that Article 81(1)EC did not apply to the exclusivity clauseand to the clauserelating to the special- interestchannels agreed on when T6l6visionpar satellite(TPS) was set up, with the result that thosetwo clausesshould not have beenexamined under Article S1(3) EC - and still less exempted- as they were by the Commission.
According Accordingto tothe theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance (udgmentInstance (udgmentin inM6 M6and andOthers vvOthers Commission,cited above),the existenceof a rule of reasonin the application of Article S1(l) EC cannotbe upheld. It took the view that an interpretation of Article 81(1) EC requiring- in accordancewith a rule of reason- the pro and anti-competitiveeffects of an agreementto be weighedin order to determinewhether it is caughtby the prohibitionlaid down in Article 81(1) EC is difficult to reconcilewith the rulesprescribed by Article 81 EC. That article expresslyprovides, in its third paragraph,for the possibility of exemptingagreements that restrictcompetition where they satisff a numberof conditions,in particular where they are indispensableto the attainmentof certainobjectives and do not afford undertakingsthe possibilityof eliminating competitionin respectof a substantialpart of the productsin question. It is only in the precise framework of that provision that the pro and anti- competitiveaspects of a restrictionmay be weighed. OtherwiseArticle 81(3) EC would losemuch of its effectiveness.
Citing certainjudgments in which the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancefavoured Instance a favoured morea flexiblemore interpretationflexible of interpretation ofthe prohibitionthe laidprohibition downdownlaid in Article 81(1) EC, the Court of First Instancenone the lesstook the view that thosejudgments could not be interpretedas establishingthe existenceof a rule of reasonin Communitycompetition law. They are, rather, part of a broadertrend in the case-lawaccording to which it is not necessaryto hold, wholly abstractlyand without drawing any distinction, that any agreement restrictingthe freedomof actionof one or more of the partiesis necessarily caughtby the prohibitionlaid down in Article 81(1) EC. In assessingthe
CommissionDecision L999l242lEC of 3 March 1999relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article [81I of the EC Treaty(M36.237 - TPS)(OJ 1999L 90, p. 6).
88 applicabilityof that article to an agreement,account should be taken of the actualconditions in which it functions,in particularthe economicand legal context in which the undertakingsoperate, the nature of the products or servicescovered by the agreementand the actualoperation and structure ofthe marketconcerned.
(a.3) Ancillaryrestrictions
The samejudgment, M6 and Othersv Commission,gave the Court of First Instancean opportunity to clarify the concept of ancillary restriction in Communitycompetition law and the implicationsof such a definition. In essencethe applicantssubmitted that the Commissionshould have classified the exclusivityclause and the clauserelating to special-interestchannels (which were the subject of an exemption under Article 81(3) EC) as ancillary restrictionson the creationof the TPS (with regardto which the Commission took the view that it did not needto interveneunder Article 81(1) EC).
As regardsthe conceptof an 'ancillary restriction'the Court of First Instance took the view that it covers any restriction which is directly related and necessaryto the implementationof a main operation.
A restriction'directly related' to implementationof a main operationmust, accordingto this judgment, be understoodto be any restriction which is subordinateto the implementationof that operationand which has an evident link with it. The conditionthat a restrictionbe necessaryimplies a two-fold examination,establishing, first, whetherthe restrictionis objectivelynecessary for the implementationof the main operationand, second,whether it is proportionateto it. Examinationof the objectivenecessity of a restrictionin relationto the main operationcannot but be relativelyabstract. If, withoutthe restriction,the mainoperation is difficult or evenimpossible to implement,the restrictionmay be regardedas objectivelynecessary for its implementation. However, if the duration or the scope of the restriction exceedwhat is necessaryin order to implementthe operation,it must be assessedseparately underArticle 81(3).
As regardsthe consequences,the Court of First Instancetook the view thatthe compatibilityof that restrictionwith the competitionrules must be examined with that of the main operation. Thus, if the main operationdoes not fall within the scopeof the prohibition laid down in Article 81(1) EC, the same holds for the restrictionsdirectly relatedto and necessaryfor that operation. If, on the other hand, the main operationis a restrictionwithin the meaning
B9B9 of that provisionbut benefitsfrom an exemptionunder Article 81(3) EC, ttrat exemptionalso covers thoseancillary restrictions. In this casethe Court of First Instanceheld that the Commissiondid not commit a manifesterror of assessmentin not classifying the above clausesas restrictionsthat were ancillary toancillary tothe creationthe ofcreation ofTPS andTPS thereforeand makingtherefore amaking separatea analysis separateofof analysis their compatibilitywith the competitionrules.
(b) (b) Prohibited agreementsagreementsProhibited
(b.1) Agreementsprohibited by Article 81(1)EC
. Severalcases gave the Court of First Instancean opportunityto review the legality of Commissiondecisions finding infringementsof Article 81(1) EC. In its judgmentin JoinedCases T-202 /98, T-204198and T-207198Tate & Lyle and Othersv Commission[200L] ECR II-2035 (under appeal,Case C-359/OlP), it held that the conditionsfor prohibitingan agreementhad been correctly applied by the Commissionin its decisionof 14 October 1998 1t and, therefore,dismissed the applicationon that point.
. . The problemThe ofproblem restrictionsof of restrictions competitionof generated competitionby generated theby cumulativecumulativethe effect ofeffect ofsimilar verticalsimilar agreementsvertical was agreements dealtwas withdealt within indepth indepth inthe judgmentjudgment the in CaseT-25199 Roberts v Commission[200U ECR II-1881.
In Inthat case,that thecase, theoperators ofoperators ofa apub pubin inthe theUnited KingdomUnited Kingdomclaimed, inclaimed, inaa complaintunder Article 3(2) of RegulationNo 17 of the Councilof 6 February 1992,First Regulationimplementing Articles [8U and [82] of the Treaty (OJ, English SpecialEdition t959-L962,p. 87), that the leaseused by the local brewery, GreeneKing, from which, as tenants,they were subject to an obligationto obtainbeer, was contraryto Article 81(1) EC. Their complaint was rejectedwas by rejected theby Commissionthe on Commission theon groundthe thatground thethat standard the lease standardused lease bybyused GreeneKing Greene Kingdid didnot notfall fallwithin withinthe scopethe of scope ofthat article.that article.The actionThe whichwhichaction they broughtthey beforebrought thebefore Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst FirstInstance sought Instancethe sought annulmentthe of annulment ofthatthat decision.
CommissionDecision 1999/210/ECof 14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuantto Article [8lJ of theEC TreatyCase MF-3133.708 -British Sugarplc, Case MF-3133.709- Tate& Lyle plc, CaseIVIF-3133.7L0 - NapierBrown & Company Ltd, CaseMF-3133.711 - JamesBudgett Sugars Ltd (OJ L999L76, p. 1).
90 Having ascertainedin detail that the contesteddecision correctly defined the relevantmarket as that of the distribution of beer in establishmentsselling alcoholic beveragesfor consumptionon the premises- the same as that identifiedby the Court of Justicein Case C-234189Delimitis [1991] ECR I-935 - the Court consideredwhether the Commissionwas right to find that GreeneKing's network of agreements,consisting of the leaseswith a purchasingobligation concluded between that breweryand its tenants,did not makea significantcontribution to that foreclosureof the relevantmarket, so that the agreementswere not caughtby the prohibitionin Article 81(1) EC. The Court of First Instanceendorsed that conclusion.
In that connectionit recalled,first, that in order to assesswhether a standard beer supply agreementcontributes to the cumulativeeffect of closingoff the marketproduced by all suchagreements, it is necessary,as held in the case- law of the Court of Justice,to take into considerationthe position of the contractingparties in the market. The contribution also dependson the duration of the agreements.If it is manifestlyexcessive in relation to the averageduration of agreementsgenerally concluded in the relevantmarket, the individualagreement falls under the prohibition laid down in Article81(1) EC. A brewery holding a relatively small shareof the marketwhich ties its sales outlets for many years may contribute to foreclosureof the market as significantlyas a brewerywith a comparativelystrong position in the market which regularlyfrees its outletsat frequentintervals. In this caseneither the marketshare of the brewernor the durationof the beer supplycontracts were held to contributesignificantly to the foreclosureof the market.
The Court of First Instancewent on to consider whether a network of agreementsof a wholesalingbrewery, here GreeneKing, which doesnot in itself significantlycontribute to the foreclosureof the market, may be linked to networks of agreementsof supplying breweries, which do contribute significantlyto suchforeclosure, and may thusfall within the scopeof Article 81(1) EC. Two conditionsmust be met in that regard. First, it must be consideredwhether the beer supply agreementsconcluded between that 'upstream' wholesalingbrewery and the supplyingbreweries, known as agreements,may be regardedas forming part of the supplyingbreweries' networksof agreements.That conditionis satisfiedif theupstream agreements containterms which may be analysedas a purchasingobligation (commitments to purchaseminimum quantities, stocking obligationsor non-competition obligations). Second,for not only the 'upstream'agreements but also the agreementsconcluded between the wholesalingbrewery and the establishments tied to it - the 'downstream'agreements - to be attributedto the supplying
91 breweries'networks of agreements,it is also necessaryfor the agreements betweenthe supplying breweries and the wholesalingbrewery to be so restrictivethat accessto the wholesalingbrewery's network of 'downstream' agreementsis no longerpossible, or at leastvery difficult, for otherbreweries. 'upstream' If the restrictiveeffect of the agreementsis limited, otherbreweries are able to concludesupply agreements with the wholesalingbrewery and so 'downstream' enter the latter's network of agreements.They are thus in a position to have accessto all the establishmentsin that network without it being necessaryto conclude separateagreements with each outlet. The 'downstream' existenceof a network of agreementsthus constitutesa factor which can promotepenetration of the marketby otherbreweries. Concluding its analysis,the court of First Instanceheld thatthe commissiondid not make a manifesterror of assessmentin concludingin the contesteddecision (point 106) that GreeneKing's network of 'downstream'agreements could not be attributedto thoseof the supplyingbreweries which had concluded beer supply agreementswith GreeneKing.
(b.2) Agreementsprohibited by Article 65 CS
. WirtschaftsvereinigungStahl, the German steel industry trade association,and 16 of its membershad notified the Commissionof an agreementon an informationexchange system which wasdeclared contrary to Article 65(1) CS by decisionof 26 November 1997. t2 T\at decisionwas annulled(udgment annulled in(udgment inCase T-16198 Case Wirtschaftsvereinigung T-16198 Stahl Wirtschaftsvereinigung andStahl OthersOthersand v CommissionI200llECR II-1217), the Court of FirstInsrance having pointed out that the Commissionwrongly took accountin its assessmentof matters which were not notified to it. In that regard it recalledthat information exchangeagreements exchangeare agreements notare generallynot prohibited generallyautomatically prohibited but automatically onlybut ifonly iftheythey havecertain characteristics relating, in particular,to the sensitiveand accurate natureof recentdata exchangedat short intervals. Where the Commission basedits assessmenton the combinedeffect of the exchangeof the threeECSC questionnaires2-7L,2-73and2-74, whereasthe notified agreementdoes not provide for the exchangeof ECSC questionnaire2-73, which specifically furnishesthe most accurate and detailed data and is accordinglylikely to reveal the strategyof the various producers,that fact has the effect of completely invalidatingthe analysismade by the Commission. If the Commissionhad
CommissionDecision g8,l4lECSC of 26 November1997 relating to a proceeding pursuantto Article65 of theECSC Treaty (Case M6.A69 - Wirtschaftsvereinigung Stahl)(OJ 1998L 1, p. 10).
92 taken account of the real scope of the notified agreement,it is not inconceivablethat its evaluationwould havebeen different and that it would haveconsidered that the agreementwas not contraryto Article 65(1) CS.
. By its decisionof 21 January1998 13the Commissionfound that a numberof undertakingshad reachedan agreementto use with effect from the samedate identicalreference values in the methodfor calculatingthe alloy surcharge(the alloy surchargeis a price supplementcalculated on the basisof the prices of alloying materialsused by stainlesssteel producers(nickel, chromiumand molybdenum),which is addedto the basicprice for stainless steel)with a view to securingan increasein the price of stainlesssteel. It imposedpenalties on them on that basis.
In its judgmentof 13 December2001 in JoinedCases T45198 andT-47/98 Krupp Thyssenand Acciai specialiTerni v Commission(not yet publishedin the ECR), the Court of First Instanceupheld that decision,holding that the two applicantshad committed an infringementderiving from their participation in an agreementconcerning the introductionand application,in a concerted manner,of the samereference values for alloys in the formula for calculating the alloy surcharge. In its findings it recalledthat the Commissionis not obliged, in order to establish an infringement of Article 65(l) CS, to demonstratethat therewas an adverseeffect on competition,provided that it has establishedthe existenceof an agreementor concertedpractice intended to restrict competition, even though the agreementrelated only to one componentof the final price of stainlesssteel flat products.
(c)(c) Exemptionsfrom p rohibition
The durationof an exemptionmust be sufficientto enablethe beneficiariesto achievethe benefitsjustiffing such exemption. However, someapplicants disputedthe legality of decisionsaddressed to them on the ground that they consideredthe durationof the individualexemption granted to themto be too short (udgmentsshort in(udgments Institutin desInstitut mandataires des agröös mandatairesv agröös vCommission and CommissionM6 and andandM6 Othersv Commission,cited above). However, neitherof thosetwo actions was upheldin that regard.
CommissionDecision 981247/ECSC of 21 January1998 relating to a proceedingunder Article65 of theECSC Treaty (Case IV/35.814 - Alloy Surcharge)(OJ 1998L 100, p. s5).
93 In its findings in M6 and Othersv Commissionthe Court of First Instanceheld that the applicantshad not adducedsufficient evidence that the Commission had madea manifesterror of assessmentin determiningthe duration of the exemptionunder Article 8l(3) EC, pointingout that, with regardto complex evaluationson economicmatters, judicial review of thoseevaluations must confineitself to an examinationof the relevanceof the facts and of the legal consequenceswhich the Commissiondeduces from them.
(d) Abuseof dominantposition
In itsjudgment of 22 November2001 in CaseT-139198 AAMS v Commission (not yet published in the ECR), the Court of First lnstanceupheld the Commissiondecision ta finding that Autonomadei Monopoli di Stato,a body forming part of the financial administrationof the ltalian Statewhich, in particular,engages in theproduction, import, exportand wholesale distribution of manufacturedtobaccos, in takingadvantage of its dominantposition on the Italian market had engagedin improper behaviourin order to protect its positionon the Italian marketfor cigarettes,in breachof Article 82 EC.
(e) Rights of the defence
. Mannesmannröhren-Werkebrought an actionbefore the Court of First Instancefor annulmentof a Commissiondecision taken pursuantto Article 11(5)of RegulationNo 17 requiringit to reply to certainquestions within the periodprescribed on penaltyof a fine. The applicantclaimed that the decision infringedits rights of defence.
In its judgment in CaseT-Ll2l98 Mannesmannröhren-Werkev Cornmission [200U ECR II-729, the Court of First Instancepartially upheld that claim, basingits findings on the reasoningof the Court of Justicein Orkem. t5 In so ruling, the Court of First Instanceasserted that thereis no absoluteright to silence in Community competition proceedingsbut confirmed that an undertakingto which a decisionrequesting information is addressedhas the
CommissionDecision 98/538/EC of 17June 1998 relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article I82l of the EC Treaty (IV/36.010-F3 AmministrazioneAutonoma dei Monopolidi Stato)(OI 1998L252, p. 47).
Judgmentin Case374187 Orkem v Commission[1989] ECR 3283.
94 right to refuse to give replies in which it would be forced to admit the existenceof an infringement. In this case,the Court of First Instancepartially annulledthe Commissiondecision in so far as it containedquestions calling upon the undertakingto describethe purposeof certain meetingsand the decisionsadopted during them.
As regardsthe argumentsto the effect thatArticle 6(1) and (2) of the ECHR enablesa person in receipt of a request for information to refrain from answeringthe questionsasked, even if they are purely factualin nature,and to refuseto producedocuments to the Commission,the Court of First Instance pointed out that the applicantcannot directly invoke the ECHR before the Communitycourt.
However, it emphasisedthat Communitylaw doesrecognise as fundamental principlesboth the rights of defenceand the right to fair legal process. It is in application of those principles, which offer, in the specific field of competition law,competition law,at atissue inissue inthe presentthe case,present plotectioncase, plotectionequivalent toequivalent tothatthat guaranteedby Arttcle 6 of the ECHR, that the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancehave consistentlyheld that the recipientof requestssent by the Commissionpursuant to Article 11(5) of RegulationNo 17 is entitledto confine himself to answeringquestions of a purely factual nature and to producing only the pre-existing documents and materials sought and, moreover,is soentitled as from the very first stageof an investigationinitiated by the Commission. It addedthat the fact of being obligedto answerpurely factualquestions put by the Commissionand to comply with its requestsfor the productionof documentsalready in existencecannot constitute a breachof the principle of respectfor the rights of defenceor impair the right to fair legal process. There is nothingto preventthe addresseeof suchquestions or requestsfrom showing,whether later during the administrativeprocedure or in proceedingsbefore the Communitycourts, when exercisinghis rights of defence,that the factsset out in his repliesor the documentsproduced by him havea differentmeaning from that ascribedto them by the Commission.
As regardsthe possibleimplications for the assessmentof this caseof the Charterof fundamentalrights of the EuropeanUnion (OJ 2000 C 364, p. l), proclaimedon 7 December2000 in Nice andcited by the applicant,the Court of First Instanceconfined itself to observingthat the Charterhad not yet been proclaimedon the date of the adoptionof the contesteddecision (15 May 1998)and could therefore have no implicationsfor the legalityof thatdecision.
g5 . . In Inits judgmentits injudgment inKrupp KruppThyssen Stainless Thyssenand Stainless Acciaiand Acciaispeciali TerniTernispeciali v vCommission, cited.Commission, above,cited. theabove, theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance heldInstance heldthat thatIkuppIkupp ThyssenStainless, although it had madea statementby which it agreedto be held liable for conductimputed to ThyssenStahl sincethe latter's businessin the productthe sectorproduct concernedsector by concerned bythe infringementthe hadinfringement beenhad transferredbeen to transferred toit,it, hadnot waivedits right to be heardas to the facts. In that regard,while such a astatement takes statement accounttakes interaccount interalia aliaof ofeconomic considerationseconomic specific considerations totospecific concentrationsof concentrations undertakingsof and undertakings constitutes and an constitutes exceptionan to exception theto principlethe thatthatprinciple a natural or legal person may be penalisedonly for acts imputed to it individually,it mustbe interpretedstrictly. In particular,unless he givessome indication toindication tottte tttecontrary, contrary,the theperson makingperson makingsuch asuch a statement cannot statement bebecannot presumedto have waived the right to exercisehis rights of defence. ln the light of thoseconsiderations, the Court of First Instancepartially annulled Article I of the contesteddecision.
A A Examinationof Examination ofcomplaints by complaints theby CommissionCommissionthe
While it hasbeen settled case-law since the judgment in Case 125178Gema v CommissionU9T9lECR 3173that Article 3(2) of RegulationNo 17 doesnot entitle theentitle applicantthe withinapplicant withinthe themeaning ofmeaning ofthat articlethat articleto torequire fromrequire fromthethe Commissiona final decisionwithin the meaningof Article 249 EC as regards the existenceor non-existenceof an infringementof Article 81 EC and/or Article 82 EC, the Commissionis obligednevertheless to examinecarefully the factualthe andfactual legaland particularslegal broughtparticulars tobrought toits itsnotice bynotice bythe complainantthe inin complainant order orderto todecide whetherdecide theywhether theydisclose conductdisclose ofconduct ofsuch a such akind kindas toas to distortdistort competitionin competition thein commonthe market commonand market affectand tradeaffectbetween trade the between Memberthe StatesStatesMember (udgment in(udgment inCase T-206199 Case Mötropole T-206199 tölövisionMötropole v tölövision vCommission [2001] Commission ECRECR[2001] II-1057), andinform the complainantof the reasonswhy it decides,if it does, to closethe file.
A numberof casesgave the Court of First Instancean opportunityto ascertain whetherthe obligationsincumbent upon the Commissionin the processingof complaintsreferred to it were respected(udgments in JoinedCasesT-197197 and T-198/97and T-198/97WeyI BeefWeyI ProductsBeef andProducts andOthers vOthers vCommission [20011 Commission ECRECR[20011 II-303, Case T-26199 Trabisco v Comrnission[?ß0ll ECR II-633, Case T-62199Sodimn v Commission[2001] ECR II-655, Case T-ll5l99 SEP v Commission!200ll Commission !200llECR II-691ECR II-691andMötropole and tölövisionMötropolev tölövision vCommission, citedcited Commission, above; orderabove; orderin inCompagnia PortunleCompagnia PortunlePiaro PiaroChiesa vChiesa vCommission, cited,cited,Commission, above). Onecase also concerned the obligationsof the Commissionin respect of a complaintrelating to infringementsof the ECSC Treaty (CaseT-89/98
96 NALOOv Commission[2001] ECR II-515 (underappeal, Cases C-172l01 P, C-t75/01P,C-176/01P and C-180/01 P).
. One of the obligations incumbent upon the Commission is the obligation to state reasonsfor the measuresit adopts. In two judgments, Mdtropole tölövisionMdtropolev tölövision vCommission and CommissionNALOO and vNALOO vCommission, cited Commission, above,above,cited the Court of First Instanceraised of its own motionthe Commission'sfailure to statereasons for the contesteddecisions and annulledthem.
In Mötropole töInision v Commissionthe contesteddecision rejected a complaint in which Mdtropole t6l6vision criticised the practices of the EuropeanBroadcasting Union (EBU) in refusingits applicationfor admission severaltimes.
To understandthe Court's ruling, it is necessaryto bear in mind that, by its judgment in Joined CasesT-528/93, T-542193,T-543/93 and T-546/93 Mötropoleand Othersv Commission11996l ECR II-649, the Court of First Instanceannulled the decisiongranting an exemptionunder Article 81(3) EC inter alia for the EBU's statutes.
Following that judgmentannulling the decision,in which the Court of First Instancedid not rule on the applicationto the casein point of Article 8l(1) EC, the Commissionwent back on its positionconcerning the applicationof that provision to the EBU's membershiprules, expressingthe view in the decisionrejecting the complaintthat thoserules did not fall within the scope of thatprovision of the Treaty. Althoughthe Court allowedsuch a substantial changein the Commission'sposition, it took the view that it required a statementof reasons. No reasonswere statedin the casein point.
. The Court of First Instancealso reviewedthe merits of decisions rejectingcomplaints. It was essentiallya matterof ascertainingwhether the Commissionwas justified in rejectinga complainton the groundof insufficient Community interest in pursuing examinationof the case or becausethe conditionsfor the applicationof the Communitycompetition rules in the EC Treaty were not satisfied.
For instance, in Mötropoletölövisionv Commission, the Court of First Instance foundnot only thatthere was no statementof reasons,which in itself madethe act voidable, but also that the Commissionhad infringed the obligations incumbentupon it whenexamining a complaintfor infringementof Article 81 EC in failing to assessthe possiblepersistence of anti-competitiveeffects and
97 their impacton the marketin question,even if thosepractices had ceased since the matterwas referredto it.
. Finally, in its judgmentsin Trabiscov Commissionand Sodimav Commission,cited above,the Court of First Instanceheld that, althoughit is true that the Commissionis required to adopt, within a reasonabletime, a decisionon a complaintunder Article 3 of RegulationNo 17, the fact that it exceedsa reasonabletime, evenif proven,does not necessarilyin itselfjustiff annulmentof the contesteddecision. It observedthat, as regardsapplication of the competitionrules, a failure to act within a reasonabletime canconstitute a grounda forground forannulment only annulment inonly thein casethe of case ofa decision a finding decision anfinding infringement,infringement,an where it has been proved that infringementof that principle has adversely affected theaffected theability abilityof ofthe theundertakings concernedundertakings toconcerned to defend themselves.themselves.defend Except inExcept inthat specificthat circumstance,specific failure circumstance, tofailure tocomply withcomply withthe principlethe thatthatprinciple a decisionmust be adoptedwithin a reasonabletime cannotaffect the validity of the administrative procedure conducted under Regulation No 17. Accordingly,the plea allegingthe unreasonableduration of the administrative procedurewas ineffectivein that connection.
@ @ Determining theDetermining amountthe of amount finesfinesof
. In 1998the Commissionadopted guidelines on the methodof setting fines imposedpursuant to Article 15(2)of RegulationNo 17 andArticle 65(5) of the ECsc Treaty (oJ 1998 C 9, p. 3). The first casesinvolving the applicationof thoseguidelines have come before the Court of First Instance. 16 Having been fined ECU 39.6 Erillion, by a Commissiondecision, for infringementof Article 81(1) EC on the industrialand retail sugarmarkets, British BritishSugar arguedSugar beforeargued thebefore Courtthe Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance that Instance thethat conceptthe ofofconcept aggravatingcircumstances aggravating introduced circumstances byintroduced bythe guidelinesthe is guidelines isnot notin inconformityconformity with Article I5(2) of Council RegulationNo 17. In its judgmentin Tate & LyIe andLyIe Othersand v Others vCommission, the Commission, Courtthe heldCourt thatheld thatthat argument that was argument withoutwithoutwas foundation. foundation.The procedureThe followed procedure byfollowed theby Commissionthe to Commission tofix fixthe amountthe ofofamount the fine, in the first stageassessing the gravity solelyby referenceto factors relating torelating tothe theinfringement itself,infringement itself,such assuch itsas itsnature andnature itsand itsimpact onimpact onthethe market, and in the second,modiffing the assessmentof the gravity by referenceto circumstancesrelating to the undertakingconcerned, which,
See footnote 11.
98 moreover,leads the Commissionto take into accountnot only possible aggravatingcircumstances but also, in appropriatecases, attenuating circumstances,is far from beingcontrary to the letter and the spirit of Article 15(2)of RegulationNo 17. It allowsthe Commission, particularly in thecase of infringements involving many undertakings,to take account in its assessmentof the gravityof the infringement,of the differentrole playedby eachundertaking and its attitudetowards the Commissionduring the courseof theproceedings.
" An undertaking may adopt a cooperative attitude towards the Commission.Such cooperation may be rewardedpursuant to the Commission Noticeon the non-impositionor reductionof finesin cartelcases (OJ 1996C 207,p. 4).
The extent of the cooperation,its classificationas such and whether it is actuallytaken into accountby the Commissionin fixing the amountof the fine are, however,subject to dispute,as the casesof Tate& Lyle v Commission- in which the Court of First Instanceheld thatthe Commissiondid not correctly assessthe extent of the cooperationby Tate & Lyle - and Krupp Thyssen Stainlessand Acciai speciali Terni v Commission,cited above, and Case T-48/98 Acerinox v Commission(ud,gment of 13 December2001, not yet publishedin the ECR) show.
In the latter two judgments, the Court of First Instanceheld that the Commissionhad breachedthe principleof equaltreatment in applyingone of the criteria laid down in the abovenotice in a discriminatorvmanner.
The disputeon this point arosebecause the Commissionallowed a reduction in the amountof the fines imposedon the applicantswhich was lessthan that allowedto Usinor,the first undertakingto replyto theCommission's questions regardingthe alleged infringement,on the ground that the applicantshad providedno further evidencethan that in the first reply received. In reply to a questionfrom the Court, the Commissionconfirmed that it had sentthe same questionnaireto all the undertakings.
Sincethe Commissiondid not showthat the applicantshad had any knowledge of the answersgiven by Usinor, the mere fact that one of thoseundertakings wasthe first to acknowledgethe factscould not constitutean objectivereason for treatingthe undertakingsconcerned differently. The appraisalof the extent of the cooperationshown by undertakingscannot depend on purely random factors,such as the order in which they are questionedby the Commission.
99 (h)(h) Concentrations
Only oneOnly caseone on case theon subjectthe of subject concentrationsof of concentrations undertakingsof was undertakings decidedwas byby decided the Court of First Instance. It fell within the rulesof the ECSCTreaty (Case T-156/98RJB Mining v Commissionp00Ll ECR II-337 (underappeal, Ioined CasesC-157101P and C-169/01P)). The casearose from the Commission decisionof 29 July 199817 authorising, under Article 66 CS, the merger of threeGerman coal producers, RAG Aktiengesellschaft(RAG), Saarbergwerke AG (SBW) and PreussagAnthrazit GmbH. The price to be paid by RAG for the acquisitionthe of acquisition ofSBW wasSBW fixedwas atfixed oneat Germanone mark. German mark.That merger That formedformedmerger part ofpart ofan agreementan ('the agreement ('theKohlekompromiß') concludedKohlekompromiß')between concludedthose between threethree those companiesand companies theand Germanthe authorities,German whichauthorities, providedwhich forprovided forthe grantthe ofgrant ofStateState aid byaid theby Germanthe Government.Government. German
In annullingthe contesteddecision, the Court of First Instanceheld that in adopting adoptinga adecision decisionon onthe the compatibiliry compatibiliryof ofa aconcentration betweenbetweenconcentration undertakingswith undertakings thewith commonthe market common themarket Commissionthe must Commission takemust intotake accountaccountinto the consequenceswhich the grantof Stateaid to thoseundertakings has on the maintenanceof effective competitionin the relevant market. The Court explainedthat although the Commissionwas not requiredto assessthe legality of the supposedaid, namelythe price paid for the acquisitionof SBW, it could not, in its analysisof the competitivesituation under Article 66(2) CS, refrain from fromassessing whether, assessing andwhether, ifand ifso toso to what extent,what theextent, financialthe andfinancial thusand thethethus commercial strengthcommercial ofstrength ofthe mergedthe entitymerged entitywas strengthenedwas by strengthened bythe financialfinancialthe supportprovided support byprovided thatby supposedthat aid.aid. supposed
2. State aid
The CourtThe decidedCourt actions decidedseeking actions the seeking annulmentthe of annulment ofdecisions taken decisionsunder taken thethe under rulesof the EC Treaty(Case T-73i98 Prqon-Rupelv C.ommission[200U ECR lI-867 ,lI-867 Case, T-288 Case/97 T-288 Regione/97 autonomß Regione Friali-Venezia autonomß GiuliaFriali-Venezia vGiulia vCommissionCommission [2001]ECR II-1169, CaseT-L87199 Agrana Ztcker und Störkev Commission [200U ECR II-1587(under appeal, Case C-321l01 P) andof the ECSCTreaty (CaseT-6/99 ESFElbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi v Commission[200L] ECR II-1523
Commissiondecision of 29 July 1998 authorising the acquisition by RAG Aktiengesellschaftof controlof SaarbergwerkeAG andPreussag Anthrazit GmbH (Case No IV/ECSC.l2s2-RAG/Saarbergwerke AG/Preussag Anthrazit).
100 and JoinedCases T-12199 and T-63199UK Coal v Commission[200U ECR rr-2153).
(a) Examination by the Commission
By decisionof 1 October1997 , the Commissiondecided that the extensionby the Germanauthorities of the aid schemefor investmentprojects in the new Lander, a schemewhich it had previously approved,constituted State aid incompatiblewith the commonmarket. One companywhich stoodto benefit from that extension,Mitteldeutsche Erdoel-Raffinerie, which had beenunable to completeits investmentproject in the time allowed by the original aid schemefor reasonsbeyond its control, broughtan actionwhich gaverise to the judgmentin MineldeutscheErdoel-Rffinerie v Commission,cited above, annulling,in respectof the applicant, the contesteddecision. The Court of First Instanceheld that the Commissionwas not justified in concludingas far as the applicantwas concerned,that the legal provision at issueintroduced additionalState aid or was incompatiblewith the commonmarket.
In its findings the Court statedthat, in the decisionit adoptsfollowing its examination,the Commissioncan considerthat somespecific applications of the aid schemenotified constituteaid while othersdo not, or can declare certainapplications only to be incompatiblewith the commonmarket. In the exerciseof its wide discretion,it may differentiatebetween the beneficiaries of the aid schemenotified by referenceto certaincharacteristics they haveor conditionsthey satisfy. It is evenpossible that the Commissionshould not confine itself to carrying out a general,abstract analysis of the aid scheme notified, but shouldalso be obligedto examinethe specificcase of one of the undertakingsbenefiting from the aid. In the case in point, such an examinationwas requirednot only in view of the particular featuresof the case,but also because,during the administrativeprocedure, the Government of the MemberState concerned had expresslyasked for that to be done.
(b) Openingof theformal examinationprocedure
On accountof its failure to initiate the procedureunder Article 88(2) EC, the Commissionwas censuredby the Court of First Instancewhich annulledthe decisionof the Commissionto raise no objectionto the grant of aid by the FederalRepublic of Germanyto ChemischeWerke Piesteritz GmbH (udgment
101 in Prayon-RupelvCommission, cited above). The conditionsunder which that proceduremust be initiatedwere defined.
In that rdgard,it is settledcase-law that the procedureunder Article S8(2)EC is obligatoryif the Commissionexperiences serious difficulties in establishing whetheror not aid is compatiblewith the commonmarket. The Commission cannottherefore limit itself to the preliminaryprocedure under Article 88(2) EC andtake a favourabledecision on a Statemeasure which hasbeen notified unless it is in a position to reach the firm view, following an initial investigation,that the measurecannot be classifiedas aid within the meaning of Article 87(1)EC, or that the measure,whilst constitutingaid, is compatible with the commonmarket. On the other hand, if the initial analysisresults in the Commissiontaking the contrary view of the aid's compatibilitywith the commonmarket or doesnot enableall the difficultiesraised by the assessment of the measurein questionto be overcome,the Commissionhas a düty to gather all necessaryviews and to that end to initiate the procedureunder Article 88(2)EC.
When the Commissiondecides, on the basis of the factual and legal circumstancesof the case,whether the difficulties involved in assessingthe compatibilityof the aid requirethe initiation of that procedure,that decision must satisff threerequirements.
Firstly, under Article 88 EC the Commission'spower to find aid to be compatiblewith the commonmarket upon the conclusionof the preliminary procedureis restrictedto aid measuresthat raiseno seriousdifficulties, That criterion is thus an exclusiveone. The Commissionmay not, therefore, declineto initiate the formal investigationprocedure in relianceupon other circumstances,such as third party interests,considerations of economyof procedureor any other groundof administrativeconvenience.
Secondly,where it encountersserious difficulties, the Commissionmust initiate the formal procedure,having no discretionin this regard. Whilst its powers powersare arecircumscribed ascircumscribed asfar faras asinitiating initiatingthe theformal formalprocedure procedureisis concerned,the Commissionnevertheless enjoys a certainmargin of discretion in identifying and evaluatingthe circumstancesof the case in order to determinewhether or not they presentserious difficulties. In accordancewith the objectiveof Article S8(3) EC and its duty of good administration,the Commissionmay, amongstother things, engagein talks with the notiffing Stateor with third partiesin an endeavourto oversome,during the preliminary procedure,any difficultiesencountered.
t02 Thirdly, the notion of seriousdifficulties is an objectiveone. Whetheror not suchdifficulties exist requiresinvestigation of both the circumstancesunder which the contestedmeasure was adopted and its content, conducted objectively, comparing the grounds of the decision with the information availableto the Commissionwhen it took a decisionon the compatibilityof the disputedaid with the commonmarket. It follows thatjudicial review by the Court of First Instanceof the existenceof seriousdifficulties will, by nature, go beyondsimple consideration of whetheror not therehas beena manifest error of assessment.
In this case the applicant succeededin proving the existenceof serious difficulties. That proof was furnishedby referenceto a body of consistent evidence,namely that the Commissiondid not possesssufficient information and the fact that the procedureconducted by the Commissionsignificantly exceeded,both in termsof the durationof the administrativeprocedure and in terms of the circumstancesunder which it was conducted,the normal parametersof a preliminaryexamination carried out pursuantto Article 88(3) EC.
(c)(c) Dtstinction between new and sxisting aid
. By its judgment in Regione autonona Friuli-venezia Giulia v Commission,cited above,the Court of First Instanceconfirmed the solution it hadadopted in itsjudgment in JoinedCases T-298 /97,T-312/97,T-313/97, T-315197,T-600t97 to T-607t97,T-1/98, T-3198ro T-6/98 and T-23198 Alzetta and Othersv Commission120001ECR II-2319 (under appeal,Case c-298l00P). t8
Laws of the Friuli-veneziaGiulia Region(Italy) of 1981and 1985provide for financialaid measuresfor local road haulagefirms, but thosemeasures were not notified to the Commission. In a decision adopted in 1997, the commissiondeclared the aid grantedto internationalroad haulagefirms and thatgranted, from I July 1990to firms carryingout exclusivelylocal, regional or nationalhaulage incompatible with the commonmarket and ordered its recovery.
This judgment was commenredon in the 2000 Annual Report.
103 Upholdingthe solutionoriginally devised in thejudgment in Alzettaand Others v Commission,the Court of First Instanceheld that a systemof aid established in a marketthat was initially closedto competitionmust, when that marketis liberalised,be regardedas an existingaid system,in so far as at the time of its establishmentit did not comewithin the scopeof Articte 87(1) EC, which appliesonly to sectorsopen to competition.
In this case,as the cabotagemarket was only liberalisedfrom I July 1990,aid grantedto undertakingsengaged solely in local, regionalor nationaltransport, under systemsset up in 1981and 1985,must be classifiedas existingaid and canbe the subject,if at all, only of a decisionfinding it incompatibleas to the future.
Conversely, sinceConversely, thesince theinternational roadinternational haulageroad sectorhaulage wassector wasopened upopened uptoto competitionfrom 1969onwards, the systemsof aid establishedin 1981and 1985in that sectorshould have been regarded as new systemsof aid which were subject, as such, to the obligation of notification laid down by Article 88(3)EC.
The contesteddecision was therefore annulled in so far asin it the Commission declaredaid grantedwith effect from 1 July 1990 to undertakingsengaged solely in local, regional or national transport to be illegal and required recoveryof that aid.
As Asthe theCourt Courtof ofJustice nowJustice nowhas beforehas itbefore itan anaction foraction forannulment ofannulment ofthethe decision at issue in the case under consideration,brought by the Italian Republic (CaseRepublic C-372197),(Case and C-372197), appealsand against appealsthose against twothose judgmentstwo ofjudgments ofthethe Court of First Instance,the Court of Justicewill give a final ruling on the issueof law thus decided.
. . The Thejudgment judgmentin inAgrana AgranaZtcl 104 (d) Derogationsfrom theprohibition The Court's findings as to derogationsfrom the prohibition laid down by the EC Treaty (inter alia the judgment in Agrana Zucker und Störke v Commission,cited above)confirm previous,well-establisheddecisions . However,in connectionwith the ECSCTreaty, the interpretationof the rules applicableto State aid in the coal sector gave rise to some more precise definitionsin the proceedingsbetween UK Coal, formerly RIB Mining, and the Commission. On 9 September1999 the Court had deliveredan interlocutoryjudgment in le CaseT-110198 NB Mining v CommissionII999l ECR II-2585, confined to two questionsof law, raisedby RIB Mining in its action for annulmentof the Commissiondecision authorising financial aid from the FederalRepublic of Germanyfor the coal industryin 1997. Thosetwo questionswere whether the Commissionis authorisedby DecisionNo 3632l93iECSCn to giveex post facto approval to aid which has already been paid without its prior approvaland whetherthe Commissionhas power under Article 3 of that decisionto authorisethe grant of operatingaid provided only that the aid enablesthe recipientundertakings to reducetheir productioncosts and achieve degressionof aid, without their having any reasonablechance of achieving economicviabilitv within the foreseeablefuture. The Court of First Instancegave the samereplies to thosequestions, raised in actionsfor annulmentof Commissiondecisions authorising financial aid from the FederalRepublic of Germanyfor the coal industryin 1998and 1999, in its judgmentin UK Coal v Commission,cited above. Thus, it took the view that the plea basedon the allegedprohibition on authorisingex postfacto aid paid without prior authorisationwas unfounded. It alsodismissed the plea based on theCommission's alleged lack of authority by reasonof late notificationby the FederalRepublic of Germanyof certain financial aid, the Court taking the view that the time-limit for notification providedfor by DecisionNo 3632193is a purelyprocedural time-limit of an indicativenature. l9 That judgment was commentedon in the 1999 Annual Report. CommissionDecision No 3632193/ECSCof 28 December1993 establishing Community rules for State aid to the coal industry (OJ 1993 L 329, p. l2). 105 The answergiven to the secondquestion makes it justifiableto point out again that Article 3 of DecisionNo 3632193provides that Member Stateswhich intend intendto togrant grantoperating aidoperating aidfor for1994 to1994 to20O2 to20O2 tocoal coalundertakings areareundertakings required to submit to the Commission in advance 'a modernisation, rationalisation andrationalisation andrestructuring planrestructuring planldesignedl toldesignedl toimprove improvethe theeconomiceconomic viability of the undertakingsconcerned by reducingproduction costs'. The TheCourt Courtfound foundthat, that,contrary contraryto tothe theinterpretation putinterpretation putforward forwardby bythethe applicant,no provisionin DecisionNo 3632193states expressly that operating aid must be strictly reservedfor undertakingswith reasonablechances of achievingeconomic viability in the long term, in the sensethat they must be capableof meetingcompetition on the world marketon their own merits. The provisionsrequire only that economicviability 'improve'. It follows that improvementin improvement thein economicthe viability economic ofviability aof givena und.ertakinggiven necessart$ und.ertakingmeansmeans necessart$ no more than a reduction in the level of its non-profitabilityand its non- competitiveness.competitiveness. Moreover, this case gave the Court an opportunity to define the term 'degression of aid', oneof the objectivesset by DecisionNo 3632/93. In that regard,it pointedout that, asprovided in Article 3(1) of DecisionNo 3632193, operatingaid is intendedsolely to cover the differencebetween production costsand the sellingprice on the world market. By virnre of Article 3(2) ot that thatdecision, thatdecision, thataid aid may maybe beauthorised onlyauthorised onlyif ifthere isthere isat at least aleast atrendtrend towards atowards reductiona inreduction inthe productionthe costsproduction ofcosts ofthe undertakingsthe receiving undertakings it.it.receiving In that context,the first indentof Article 2(1) of the decisionsets as 'one of the ... objectives'to be attainedthat of'achieving degression ofaids', an aim to be achievedin the light of coal prices on internationalmarkets. The economicrealities, namely the structural unprofitabilityof the Communitycoal industry, in the light of which the decisionwas taken, must be taken into account when interpretingArticle 2(I) of that decision. As neither the Communityinstitutions, Communitythe institutions, Memberthe States Memberor States theor undertakingsthe concerned undertakingshavehave concerned a asignificant influencesignificant oninfluence onthe pricethe priceon onthe theworld worldmarket, market,the theCommissionCommission cannot becannot reproachedbe for reproached forhaving attachedhaving overriding attached importance,overriding in importance, interms ofofterms a degressionofaid to the coalindustry, to reducingproduction costs, since any reductionnecessarily means that the volume of aid is smaller than if the reductionhad not occurred,irrespective of movementsin world marketprices. Finally, the claim that the Commissiondid not take sufficientaccount in its assessmentof aid from the FederalRepublic of Germanyto the coal industry in 1998and 1999of the questionwhether the mergerof the threeGerman coal 106 21 producers entailedaid which was not notified was rejected,as the Court of First Instancetook the view that the Commissiondid not makea manifest error of assessmentin authorisineState aid. (e)(e) Obligation to recover aid The obligationto recoveraid declaredincompatible with the commonmarket was examinedin Regioneautonotnn Friuli-venezia Giulia v commissionand AgranaZuckerund Störkev Commission.However, as regardsthe obligation to recover,the judgment in ESFElbe-stahlwerke Feralpi v commissiozis most worthy of attention. In that case,the Court held, in a finding sufficientlyrare to be noteworthy,that the principle of legitimateexpectations precluded the recoveryof one elementof aid from its beneficiary. In thatjudgment the Court of First Instanceheld thatthe principle of legitimate expectationsprecluded the Commissionfrom ordering the recovery of aid, when, according to information from third parties, it considered its compatibilitywith the commonmarket in coal and steel severalyears afier approvalof the aid concerned,and held it incompatiblewith that market.2 3. Trade protection measures The Court of First Instancedelivered several judgments on the anti-dumping rules (udgment in Case T-82l00 Bic and Others v Council [2001] ECR II-I24I, andEuroqlliages v Commission,cited above)and the anti-subsidy rules(Mukand and Othersv Council,cited above). In its judgment in Euroalliagesv Commission,the Court of First Instance, which dismissed the action for annulment of a Commission decision terminating an anti-dumpingproceedirg, ' interpretedthe provisions of The clecision authorising that merger was annulled by the judgment in .&lB Mining v Commission,cited abave" In the judgment, the Court of First Instancealso definedthe scopeof the rules on State aid under the ECSC Treaty. Cnmmission Decision 19991426/EC of 4 June 1999 terminating the anti-dumping proceedingconcerning imports of ferro-siliconoriginating in Egypt and Poland(OJ 1999 L 166"p. 9l)" 107 Council Regulation(EC) No 384196of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community(OJ 1996L 56, p. 1), governingthe conditionsunder which anti dumping measuresdumping can measures becan bemaintained aftermaintained afterexpiry expiryof ofthe thefive fiveyear periodperiodyear following their introduction(Article l1(2)). It statedthat the rule that informationrelating to a period subsequentto the investigationperiod is not, normally, to be takeninto accountapplies also to investigationsrelating to expiry reviews. In that regard,it pointedout that the exceptionto that rule, allowedby the Court in its judgmentin CaseT'161194 SinochemHetlongjiang v Council U9961ECRII-695, concernsonly the case in which datarelating to a period after the investigationperiod disclosenew developmentswhich developments whichmake themake introductionthe orintroduction ormaintenance of maintenance ofanti-dumpinganti-dumping duty dutymanifestly manifestlyinappropriate. inappropriate.That Thatimplies impliesthat thatfactors arisingfactors arisingafter afterthethe investigationperiod cannotbe taken into accountin order for duties to be retained. . By its judgment in Mulwnd and Othersv Council, cited above, the Court of First Instanceannulled Council Regulation(EC) No 2450/98of 13 November 1998 imposing a definitive countervailingduty on imports of stainless steel bars originating in India and collecting definitively the provisionalduty imposed(OJ 1998 L 3@, p. 1), in so far as it concerned imports intoimports intothe European the Community European ofCommunity ofproducts manufachrredproducts by manufachrred bythe fourfourthe applicantcompanies. Under Council Regulation(EC) No 2026197of 6 October1997 on protection againstsubsidised imports from countries not membersof the European Community (OJ 1997 L 288, p. l) and the Agreementon Subsidiesand CountervailingMeasures concluded within the World Trade Organisationin the contextof the UruguayRound of Negotiations(OJ 1994L 336, p. 156), countervailingduties may be imposedonly if the subsidisedimports cause material injury to a Communityindustry and no accountis taken of factors other than the importsin questionin assessingwhether there is suchinjury. In this case,the Court of First Instanceheld that the assessmentof the injury andof the causallink betweenthe injury and the subsidisedimports set out in the contestedregulation was vitiatedby a manifesterror. It pointedout that the Commissionand the Council disregardeda known factor, other than the subsidisedimports - that is to say, a uniform, consistentindustrial practice of Communityproducers, tlte objectiveeffect of which was automaticallyto mirror, mirror,in inthe marketsthe formarkets forthose products, those artificialproducts, artificialprice increasesprice - increases- whichwhich 108 might havebeen a concurrentcause of the injury sustainedby the Community industrv. 4. Trade mark law The case-lawon trade marks was developedby a number of judgments concerningassessment of the conditionsfor registrationof a Communitymark laid down by Regulation (EC) No 40/94, u whether verbal, 5 three- dimensional26 or figurative.n The decidedcases concerned decisions of the Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994L 11,p. 1). Judgmentsin Case T-135/99 Taurus-Film v OHIM (Cine Action) [2001] ECR II-379, CaseT-136199 Taurus-Film v OHIM (Cine Comedy)[2001] ECR lI-397, CaseT-193/99 Wrigleyv OHIM (DOUBLEMINT) [2001] ECR II-417 (underappeal, Case C-191/01 P), Case T-331199 Mitsubishi HiTec Paper Bielefeld v OHIM (Giroform) [2001] ECR II-433, Case T-24100Sunrider v OHIM (VITALITE) [2001] ECR II-449, Case T-87/00 Bank fiir Arbeit und Wirtschaft v OHIM (EASYBANK) [2001] ECR II-1259, Case T- 359/99 DKVv OHIM (EuroHealth) [2001] ECR II-1645 and Joined CasesT-357/99 and T-358/99 Telefon & ßuch v OHIM (UNIWRSAL TELEFONBUCH and UNIVERSAL- KOMMUNIKATIONSWRZEICHNIS) [2001] ECR II-1705 (under appeal, Case C-326101P), and judgments of 3 October 2AA1in CaseT-14l00 hpf Creation v OHIM (New Born Baby) (under appeal, Case C-498/01 P), and of 11 December 2AAl in Case T-138/00 Erpo tuIöbelwerkv OHIM (DAS PRILP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT), not yet published in the ECR. 'tablets' Judgmentsof 19 September2001 in the so-called cases,Case T-335199 Henkel v OHIM (rectangular red and white tablet) (under appeal, Case C-456/01 P), Case T-336199 Henkell v OHIM (rectangular green and white tablet) (under appeal, Case C-457101P), Case T-337199 Henkel v OHIM (round red and whf,te tablet), Case T-117/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (square white and pale green tablet) (under appeal, Case C-468101P), Case T-118/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (square white tablet with green and pale green speckles) (under appeal, Case C-469101P), Case T-119/00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (squarewhite tablet withyellow and blue speckles (under appeal, Case C-470101P), Case T-IZA0A Procter & Gamble v OHIM (square white tablet with blue specklesl(under appealCase C-471/01 P), CaseT-l2ll00 Procter & Gamble v OHIM (square white tablet with green and blue speckles) (under appeal, CaseC-472ß1 P), CaseT-128/0A Procter & Gamblev OHIM (squaretablet witlt intay) (under appeal, Case C-473101 P), Case T-L29|0A Procter & Gamble v OHIM (rectangular tablet with inlay) (under appeal, CaseC-47UA1 P), not yet published in the ECR. Judgmentof 19 September2001 in CaseT-30/00 Henkel v OHIM (imnge of a detergent 'tablets' product), not yet publishedin the ECR, one of the so-called cases. 109 Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisationin the Internal Market ('OHIM') refusingto registerthe trade marks appliedfor. The applications wererefused on the groundsof lack of distinctivecharacter (Article 7(1)(b)of RegulationNo 40/94) or of the descriptivenature (Article 7(1Xc))of the trade marks whoseregistration was appliedfor. Those two absolutegrounds for refusalcan only be assessedin relationto the productsand servicesconcerned in respectof which registrationwas appliedfor. Thesecases cannot be coveredexhaustively but it is of note that the Court uphelddecisions of Boardsof Appealof the OHIM in which they had refused registrationas a Communitytrade mark, on the basisof the descriptivenature of the terms, 'Cine Action' in relation to servicesspecifically and directly 'Cine concerningthe product 'action film' or its productionor broadcasting, Comedy'in relationto servicesspecifically and directly concerning the product 'Giroform' 'comedy in film form' or its productionor broadcasting, for a product consistingof a papercompound forming a duplicationmedium and ' UNMRSALTELEFONBUCH' and' UNIVERSALKOMMUNIKATIONS- VERZEICHNIS' for telephoneor communicationsdirectories intended for universaluse. However,the Court of First Instancedisagreed with the Boardsof Appeal of OHIM in holding that no descriptivefunction could be ascribedto the term VITALITE, for food for babiesor mineral and aeratedwaters, the term DOUBLEMINT, for certainmint-flavoured products, the term EASYBANK, for on-linebanking services, the term EuroHealth,for servicesfalling within the categoryof 'financialaffairs' or the signNew Born Baby, for dolls to play with and accessoriesfor suchdolls in the form of playthings,and the term DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT, for land vehiclesand household and office furniture. The 'tablets'cases gave the Court an opportunity,for the first time, to review the legality of decisionsof the Boardsof Appeal of OHIM finding that, in additionto one figurative trade mark (CaseT-30i00), the three-dimensional trade marks applied for consistingof the shapeand, in some cases,the arrangementof the coloursor the designof laundry or dishwasherproducts were devoidof distinctivecharacter. In that regard, it held that it is clear from Article 4 of RegulationNo 40/94 that both a product's shapeand its colours fall amongthe signswhich may constitute aconstitute aCommunity tradeCommunity mark,trade mark,while whilepointing pointingout outthat thethat the fact factthat aathat categoryof signsis, in general,capable of constitutinga trademark doesnot 110 mean that signs belonging to that category necessarilyhave distinctive characterin relationto a specificproduct or service. It also held, in ten of the judgmentsin question,that Article 7(1)(b) of RegulationNo 40/94 doesnot distinguishbetween the differentcategories of trade marks. The criteria for assessingthe distinctivecharacter of three- dimensionaltrade marks consistingof the shapeof the product itself are thereforeno differentfrom thoseapplicable to othercategories of trademarks. It went on to hold that, nevertheless,when thosecriteria are applied,account must be taken of the fact that the perceptionof the relevantsection of the public is not necessarilythe samein relation to a three-dimensionalmark consistingof the shapeand the coloursof the productitself as it is in relation to a word mark, a figurativemark or a three-dimensionalmark not consisting of the shapeof the product. Whilst the public is usedto recognisingthe latter marks instantlyas signs identiffing the product, this is not necessarilyso wherethe sign is indistinguishablefrom the appearanceof the productitself. Finally, in the judgmentin Henkel v OHIM (imngeof a detergentproduct), cited above, which concerneda figurative mark consistingof a faithful representationof the product itself, the Court held that an assessmentof distinctivecharacter cannot result in differentoutcomes for a three-dimensional mark consistingof the designof the product itself and for a figurative mark consistingof a faithful representationof the sameproduct. " It should be noted, at this point in the commentary, that the proceedingsbrought by Mrs Kik, supportedby the HellenicRepublic, against OHIM, challengingthe legalityof the rulesgoverning languages in Regulation No 40/94, endedin the dismissalof the action(udgment in CaseT-120199 Kik v OHIM [2001]ECR II-2235(under appeal, case C-361i01 P), The Court, sittingwith five judges,held that the obligationincumbent on the applicantfor registrationof a Community trade mark to indicate a 'second language' (German,English, Spanish, French and Italian) as a possiblelanguage of proceedingsfor opposition, revocationor invalidity proceedings,did not involve an infringementof the principle of non-discrimination. . The last item of note under this heading is the judgment of 15 November2001 in CaseT-128l99 Signal Communicationsv OHIM QELEYE), not yet publishedin the ECR, which is unusualin that it concernsan aspect of the registrationprocedure and a claim for priority of a previously filed application"In this case,the Court of First Instanceannulled the decisionof the Boardof Appealof OHIM refusinga claim for correctionof an application 111 for a Communitytrade mark on the groundthat the correctionsought was in no way abusiveand did not entail substantialalteration of the trademark. 5. Accessto Council and Commissiondocuments The Court ruled on threeoccasions on the conditionsgoverning public access to documentsof the Counciland the Commission(udgments in CaseT-204199 Mauila v Counciland Commissionf200ll ECR ll-2265 (underappeal, Case C-353/01P), of 10 October2001 in CaseT-1 ll/00 BritishAmerican Tobacco International(Investrnents) v Commissionand of 11 December2001 in Case T-l9ll99 Parte and Othersv Commission,not yet publishedin the ECR) as laid down in the legislationin force beforethe adoptionof Regulation(EC) No 1049/2001of the EuropeanParliament and of the Councilof 30 May 2001 regardingpublic accessto EuropeanParliament, Council and Commission documents(OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).4 It must be rememberedthat, on 6 December1993, the Council and Commissionapproved a Code of conduct concerningpublic accessto Council and Commissiondocuments (OJ 1993 L 340, p. 41). To implementthe principles laid down by that code, the Counciladopted, on 20 December1993, Decision 93l73llBc on publicaccess to Council documents(OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43). Similarly, on 8 February 1994,the Commission adopted Decision 94l90lECSC, EC, Euratomon public accessto Commissiondocuments (OJ 1994L 46, p. 58). . . By Byits itsjudgment judgmentin inBritish BritishAmerican AmericanTobacco TobaccoInternntionalInternntional (Investments)v (Investments)vCommission, cited Commission, above,cited the above, Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst InstanceFirst annulledannulled Instance the Commission'sdecision partially to reject an applicationfor accessto certain minutes of the Committee on Excise Duties, chaired by the Commissionand madeup of representativesof the Member States. In that casethe Court was requiredto rule on the questionwhether the Commission was entitled not to disclosethe identity of the delegationswhich gave their views onviews theon taxthe treatment tax of treatment expandedof tobacco expandedat tobacco theat meetingsthe recorded meetingsin recorded thethein minutes atminutes issue,at onissue, theon basisthe ofbasis ofthe non-mandatorythe exception non-mandatoryrelating exception torelating tothethe confidentialityof its proceedings. In order to be ableto rule in the case,the Court of First Instanceordered the Commissionto producethe minutesin questionso that it could considertheir contents. [n accordancewith the third subparagraphof Article 67(3) of the RegulationNo rc49,2001has been applicable since 3 December200t, TT2TT2 Rulesof Procedure,a provisioninvoked for the first time sinceits entry into force on 1 February2001, the documentsforwarded were not communicated to the applicant. As regards the substance,the Court held that the deliberationsof the Committeeon ExciseDuties shouldbe regardedas beingthe deliberationsof the Commission. However, the mere fact that the documentsat issuerelate to deliberationscould not by itselfjustify applicationof the exceptionrelating to confidentialityof proceedings. In each case, it is necessaryto strike a balancebetween the interestof the citizen and that of the Commissionwith regardto the contentof the documentconcerned. The Court of First Instanceheld, in this case, that the minutesrelated to discussionswhich had beenterminated by the time British AmericanTobacco International(Investments) made its requestfor access. Disclosureof the identitiesof the delegationsreferred to in thosedocuments could no longer prejudicethe properconduct of the committee'sproceedings, in particular,the free expressionby the MemberStates of their respectivepositions regarding the tax treatmentof expandedtobacco. Consequently,it held that the ground for refusalrelied on could not causethe Commission'sinterest in protecting the confidentialityof the proceedingsof the Committeeon ExciseDuties to prevailover the applicant'sinterest. . Althoughthe Counciland Commission did not considerthe possibility of grantingpartial accessto the documentsrequested, pursuant to the rule laid down in the judgment in Case T-I4198 Hautala v Council U9991 ECR II-2489, upheld on appealby the judgment of the Court of Justiceof 6 December2001 in CaseC-353 199 P, not yet publishedin theECR, the Court of First lnstänce,in its judgmentin Mattila v Counciland Commission,cited above,did not annul the decisionstaken by thosetwo institutionsto refuse accessto thosedocuments. The Court of First Instanceheld as it did because it took the view that, giventhat the disclosureof partsof documentscontaining no real informationwould havebeen of no use to the applicantand given the nature of the documentsin question,had those institutionsconsidered the possibility, they would not in any event have agreed to partial access. Accordingly,the Court held that the fact that the defendantinstitutions failed to considerthe questionof grantingpartial access had no effecton the outcome of their examinationin the particularcircumstances of the case. . Finally, in its judgment in Petrie and Others v Commission,cited above,the Court of First Instanceagain held thatthe Commissionwas entitled 113 to rely on the authorshiprule in refusingto grant accessto documentswritten by third parties. It was also held that the refusal to discloseletters before action andaction reasonedand opinions reasoned sentopinions tosent toa State a in State inthe coursethe ofcourse ofan infringementinfringementan procedurewas justified by the needto protectthe public interestas regards inspectionsand investigationsand court proceedings. As ttre contested decisionincluded a statementof reasonsand was well-founded. the actionwas dismissed. 6. Customscases Apart from the questionof the tariff classificationof certainequipment (Joined CasesT-133/98 and T-L34198Hewlat PaclwrdFrance and Hewlett Paclurd Europev Commission[200ll ECR II-613), it was the Communitylegislation laying down the conditionsfor the repaymentor remissionof import duties2e which was, onceagain, at the heartof severalcases. It mustbe observedin this connectionthat, underArticle 13(1)of Regulation No 1430i79and Article 905(1)of Regulation(EEC) No 2454/93,a personis entitledto remissionof import dutiesif he canestablish both a specialsituation and the absenceof any deceptionor obviousnegligence on his part. . The judgmentin JoinedCases T-186197, T-187197, T-190197 to T-192197, T-210197 , T-2tt/97, T-2t6197to T-2tg/97, T-279/97,T-290/97 , T-293197and T-147/99 Kaufring and Others v Commission,the 'Türkish television'cases, [2001] ECR II-1337, found in favour of thirteenEuropean importerswho had contestedCommission decisions that the applicationsfor remissionof import duties submittedto that institutionby severalMember Stateswere not justified. Thoseapplications were made after the Commission had instructedthe MemberStates ioncerned to seekpayment of the customs dutieslaid down by the CommonCustoms Tariff from the companieswhich imported theimported thecolour colourtelevision setstelevision flranufacturedsets in flranufactured inTtrrkey, Ttrrkey,in inwhich whichthethe In particular, Article 13(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1430/79 of 2 July 1979 on the repayment or remission of import or export duties (OJ 1979 L I75, p. 1), subsequentlyreplaced by Article 239(l) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 Qctober 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L992 L 302, p. 1), as further defined inter alia by Article 905 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of the Customs Code (OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1). II4 componentsoriginating in third countrieshad heenneither released for free circulationnor subjectto the cnmpensatorylevy" The Court of First Instancefound againstthe Commissionon two counts. First of all, it consideredof its own motion whetherthe Commissionhad observedthe applicants'rights of defenceduring the administrativeprocedure leadingto the adoptionof the contesteddecisions. It concludedthat it hadnot, holding that it wasclear that noneof the applicantswas placedin a position, beforethe contesteddecisions were adopted. to takea stanceand make known its views adequatelyon the evidencerelied upon by the Cornmissionin decidingttrat rernission was not justified" It emphasised,in particular,that in view of the power of assessmentenjclyed by the Commissionwhen it adopts a decisionpursuant to the generalequitable provision contained in Article 13 of RegulationNo 1430/79,it is all the more importantthat observanceof the right to be heardbe guaranteedin proceduresinstituted under that regulation. That conclusionis particularlyapt where,in exercisingits exclusiveauthority underArticle 905 of RegulationNo 2454193,the Commission proposes not to follow the opinion of the nationalauthority as to whetherthe conditionslaid downby Article 13have been met, andin particularas to whetherany obvious negligencecan be attributedto the personconcerned. Secondly,it analysedwhether the Commissionwas entitledto take the view, in the contesteddecisions, that the remissionof dutieswas not justified on the ground that the conditionslaid down by Article 13(1) of RegulationNo 1430179(existence of a specialsituation and absence of anyobvious negligence or deceptionon the part of the personconcerned) were not met. In that connection,it held that, in orderto determinewhether the circumstancesof the case constitutea special situationwithin the meaningof that article, the Commissionmust assessall the relevantfacts. That obligationimplies that, in casesin whichthe persons liable have relied, in supportof applicationsfor remission, on the existenceof serious deficiencieson the part of the contractingparties in implementingan agreementbinding the Community,the Commissionmust base its decisionas to whetherthose applications are justified on all the facts relating to the disputedimports of which it gained knowledgein the perfrlrmanceof its task of supervisingand monitoring the implementationof that agreement. Similarly, it cannot disregardrelevant informationof which it has gainedknowledge in the performanceof its tasks andwhich, althoughnot forming part of the administrativefile at the stageof the national procedure, might have served to justify remission for the interestedparties. Moreover,although the Commissionenjoys a discretionary 115 power in applying Article 13, it is required to exercise that power by genuinelybalancing, genuinelyon balancing, theon onethe hand,one thehand, Communitythe interestCommunityin interest ensuringin thatthat ensuring the customsprovisions are respectedand, on the other, the interestof the inporter inporteracting inacting goodin faithgood infaith notin sufferingnot harmsuffering whichharm goeswhichbeyond goes normalnormal beyond commercialrisks. Consequently,when considering whether an applicationfor remissionis justified, it cannottake account only of the conductof importers. It must also assessthe impact on the resultingsituation of its own conduct, which may itself havebeen wrongful. On conclusionof its analysis,having taken accountof all the documents relating to implementationof the provisionsof the AssociationAgreement betweenthe between Europeanthe Economic EuropeanCommunity Economic andCommunity theand Republicthe ofRepublic ofTtrrkey andandTtrrkey the Additionalthe AdditionalProtocol asProtocol regardsas theregards theimportation ofimportation ofcolour colourtelevision setssetstelevision from Turkey during the period in question(1991 to 1993and early 1994)of which whichthe theCommission hadCommission hadknowledge atknowledge atthe thetime timeit ittook tookthe the contestedcontested decisions, thedecisions, theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance heldInstance heldthat thatthe theserious deficienciesdeficienciesserious attributable toattributable tothe theCommission and Commission theand Turkishthe authoritiesTurkish hadauthorities thehad ffictthe ffictofof placing theplacing applicantsthe in applicants ain special a positionin special positioninrelation torelation otherto ffaders other carryingcarryingffaders out the sameactivity. Thosedeficiencies undoubtedly helped to bring about irregularitieswhich led to custornsduties being entered in the accountspost- clearancein clearance respectin of respect ofthe applicants.the Itapplicants. Italso heldalso that held inthat thein circumstancesthe ofof circumstances the thecase therecase wasthere nowas noobvious negligenceobvious or negligence ordeception ondeception onthe thepart partof ofthethe applicants. . . By Byits judgmentits injudgment inCase T-330199Case Spedition T-330199 WilhelmSpedition RoternundWilhelm Roternundvv Commission[200U ECR II-1619, the Court of First Instanceannulled a Commissiondecision that the remissionof customsduties applied for was not justified in the absenceof a specialsituation within the meaningof Article 905(1)of RegulationNo V154193. According toAccording tothe Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst Instance,First since Instance, thesince factualthe informationfactual sentinformation totosent the theCommission byCommission bythe thenational authoritiesnational andauthorities andderiving derivingfrom fromfraudulentfraudulent activity byactivity thirdby partiesthird wasparties notwas questionednot or questioned orsupplemented, the supplemented, CommissionCommissionthe not havingnot askedhavingfor asked additionalfor information, additional andinformation, sinceand that since informationthat derivedderivedinformation from frominternal operationsinternal of operations ofthe administrationthe of administration ofa aMember StateMember whichState whichthethe applicanthad applicant nohad rightno toright monitor,to andmonitor, whichand itwhich couldit notcould influencenot in influence anyin way,way,any the Commissionthe could Commission notcould merelynot makemerely amake finding a thatfinding thethat applicantthe was applicant notwas ininnot a special situation since those circumstanceswere beyond the normal commercial risk it would normally incur. In those circumstancesthe Commissionwas not entitled to limit the scope of its assessmentto the possibilityof activecomplicity by a particularcustoms official andrequire the 116 applicantto supply,if necessaryby producinga documentfrom the competent Spanishauthorities, formal and definitiveproof of suchcomplicity. By doing so the Commissionfailed to appreciateboth its obligationto assessall the facts itself in order to determinewhether they constituted a specialsituation, and the autonomousnature of the procedurelaid down in Article 905 et seq. of RegulationNo 2454193. 7. Community funding Under this heading discussionwill be limited to the judgment in Case T-143199Hortiplantv Commission[2001]ECR II-1665(under appeal, Case C-330/01P), in which it was held that, in accordancewith the obligations incumbenton applicantsfor andrecipients of Communityfinancial assistance, they are, in particular, required to supply the Commissionwith reliable information which is not likely to mislead, as otherwise the system of supervisionand rules of evidenceintroduced in order to check whetherthe conditionsfor grantingassistance have been met cannotoperate correctly. In that case, the Court of First Instanceupheld the Commissiondecision withdrawingthe EAGGF aid it had grantedto Hortiplant under Regulation (EEC) No 4256188.30 It held inter alia that the productionof invoicesand the chargingof costswhich were not genuine,together with failure to comply with the obligation to provide part-financing, establishedin the case, constitutedserious infringements of the conditionsfor grantingthe financial assistancein questionand of the obligationto provide informationand act in good faith, which is incumbentupon the recipientof such assistanceand, consequently,had to be regardedas irregularitiesfor the purposesof Article 24 of Regulation(EEC) No 4253188.3r Council Regulation(EEC) No 4256188of 19 December1988, laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052188as regards the EAGGF Guidance Section(OJ 1988L 374, p. 25). Council Regulation(EEC) No 4253188of 19 December 1988, laying down provisions for implementingRegulation (EEC) No 2052188as regardscoordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselvesand with the operations of the EuropeanInvestment Bank and the other existingfinancial instruments(OJ 1988 L374, p. 1), as amendedby Council Regulation(EEC) No 2082193(OJ 1993L 193, p. 20). T17 8. 8. Law Lawgoverning thegoverning theinstitutionsinstitutions Rule 29 of the Rulesof Procedureof the EuropeanParliament provides that Members Membersmay mayform formthemselves intothemselves intogroups groupsaccording accordingto totheir theirpoliticalpolitical affinities. Following the Europeanelections in June 1999 the 'Groupe techniquedes technique d6put6sdes ind6pendants d6put6s (TDD ind6pendants -(TDD - Groupe mixte' Groupe mixte'(Technical GroupGroup (Technical of IndependentMembers - Mixed Group), whose rules of constitution providedthat the membershad total political independenceof oneanother, was set up. On 14 September1999, the Parliament,taking the view that the conditionslaid downfor the constitutionof a political groupwere not satisfied, adoptedan interpretativenote to Rule29 of its Rulesof Procedure,prohibiting the formationof the TDI group. 32 By its judgmentin Martinezand Othersv Parliamenr,cited above,the actions broughtby Membersof the EuropeanParliament, the Front nationaland la Lista Emma Bonino againstthat note were dismissed.33 In holding thus, the Court of First Instanceconfirmed that the constitutionof the TDI Group was not in conformitywith Parliament'sRules of Procedure. This demonstratesthat the criterion relating to political affinities for the formation of political groupsconstitutes a mandatoryrequirement. In that connection,the Court of First Instanceobserved that the requirementof political affinity betweenthe membersof a groupdoes not, however,preclude them inthem intheir theirday-to-day conduct day-to-day fromconduct fromexpressing different expressing politicaldifferent politicalopinionsopinions on anyon particularany subject,particularin subject, accordancein with accordance thewith principlethe ofprinciple independenceof laidlaid independence down in Article 4(1) of the 1976 Act 3a and Rule 2 of the Rules of Procedure.Accordingly, the fact that membersof one and the samepolitical groupmay vote differentlymust, underthose circumstances, be regardednot 'The According to the interpretationadopted: formation of a group which openly rejects any political characterand all political affiliation betweenits Members is not acceptable within the meaning of this Rule.' By order of 25 November L999 in Case T-222199 R Martinez and de Gaulle v Parliament U9991 ECR il-3397, the President of the Court of First Instance granted suspensionof operation of the act; that order was commented on in the 1999 Annual Report. Act of 20 September1976 concerning the election of the representativesof the Assembly by direct universal suffrage (OJ L976L278, p. 5). 118 as indicatinga lack of political affinity amongstthemselves but as illustrating the principle of a parliamentarian'sindependence. In reply to the applicants'contentions, the Court of First Instanceheld, first, that the Parliamenthad competenceto monitor, as it did in this case, compliancewith Rule 29(1) by a group formationof which is declaredby a numberof Members. Assessingthe extentof the discretionwhich the Parliamentmust be allowed in exercisingthat cornpetence,it held, second,that the conceptof political affinity mustbe understoodas having in eachspecific case the meaningwhich the Membersforming themselvesinto a political group intend to give to it without necessarilyopenly so stating. It follows that Membersdeclaring that they areorganising themselves into a groupunder this provisionare presumed to sharepolitical affinities,however minimal. However,that presumption cannot be regardedas irrebuttable. In that regard, under its supervisory competencethe Parliamenthas the power to examinewhether the requirement laid down in Rule 29(l) of the Rulesof Procedurehas beenobserved where the Membersdeclaring the formationof a group openlyexclude any political affinity between themselves, in patent non-compliance with the abovementionedrequirement. Third, it held thatthe assessmentmade by the Parliamentas regards the failure by the TDI Group to meetthe requirementas to political affinitieswas well- founded. Severalmatters, which find expressionin the constitutionrules of the TDI Group, show that the mernbersof that groupagreed to eliminateany risk of beingperceived as sharingpolitical affinitiesand refusedto regardthe group as a vehiclefor articulatingjoint political action,restricting it solelyto financialand administrativefunctions. Furthermore,having upheld the admissibilityof the objectionof illegality of the combinedprovisions of Rule 29(l) and.Rule 30 in that they allow within the Parliamentonly the formationof groupsfounded on political affinitiesand providethat the Membersnot belongingto a political groupare to sit as non- attachedMembers under the conditionslaid down by the Bureau of the Parliament,rather than authorisingthem to form a technicalgroup or to constitutea mixedgroup, the Court of First Instanceheld thatthose provisions constitutedmeasures of internal organisationwhich are warranted by the special specialcharacteristics ofcharacteristics ofthe theParliament, Parliament,the theconstraints underconstraints underwhich whichitit operatesand the responsibilitiesand objectivesassigned to it by the Treaty. 119 The differenceThe indifference intreatment between treatmentmembers between of members ofa politicala politicalgroup andgroup thosethoseand who are not members,in terms of the rights which the Rules of Procedure confer on a political group, does not constitutediscrimination since it is justified by the fact that the former satisry,unlike the latter, a requirement underthe Rulesof Proceduredictated by the pursuit of legitimateobjectives. Finally, Finally,having takenhaving thetaken viewthe viewthat the that rulesthe inrules inquestion breachquestion neitherbreach thethe neither principle of democracynor that of freedomof association,the Court of First Instancepointed Instance outpointed ttratout attrat comparativea analysis comparativeof analysis theof parliamentarythe traditionstraditions parliamentary of ofthe Memberthe StatesMemberdoes States not does pointnot topoint theto conclusionthe that conclusion thethat formationthe offormation ofaa political group whosemembers expressly state that it is entirely unpolitical would be possiblein the majority of nationalparliaments. 9. Associationof overseascountries and territories On 8 February2000, the Court of Justice,which had beenasked for a ruling underArticle 234 EC, confirmedthe validity of Council Decision97l803lEC of 24 November 1997amending at mid-term Decision 911482/EECon the associationof the overseascountries and territories with the European 35 EconomicCommunity (CaseC-17198 Emesa Sugar [2000] ECR I-675). By its judgmentsof 6 December2001 in CaseT-43198Emesa Sugarv Council and inand inCase T44198Case EmesaT44198 SagarEmesa vSagar vCommission (not Commission (notyet yetpublished inpublished inthethe ECR), the Court of First Instanceruled in the caseschallenging the legality of Decision971803 - thosecases had beensuspended until the Court of Justice ruled on the validity of that act 36- dismissingthe actions. After the Court of Justicehad given its ruling, theparties were asked to submit their observations.The applicantsubmitted that the judgmentwas basedon errorsof fact. However,according to the Court of First Instance,none of the pleas raisedpleas byraised bythe theapplicant norapplicant norany anyof ofthe thearguments put arguments putforward forwardin initsits observations,inter observations, interalia alia those concerning those the concerning appraisalthe by appraisal bythe Councilthe ofCouncil ofthethe needto limit sugarimports falling within the 'ACP/OCT cumulationof origin' OJ 1997L 329,p. 50. Note, however,that most of the groundsrelating to the assessmentof the legality of Decision 971803,on which the Court of First Instancebases its findings in Case T44/98, areset out in connectionwith the claimsfor damagesin CaseT-43198. r20r20 rule, asupheld by the Courtof Justice,pointed to the illegalityof the contested decision. 10. Staff cases Among the many judicial decisionsmade in this field of litigation, six judgmentsin particularmerit attention. . Thejudgment in CaseT-IL8|99 BonaitiBrighinav Commissionl200|l ECR-SCII-97 shouldbe mentionedas it clarifiesthe questionof the point in time from which the time-limitfor bringingproceedings starts to run wherethe decisionrejecting a complaintis sent to an official in a languagewhich is neitherhis mother tonguenor that in which the complaintwas made. The Court of First Instanceheld that the notificationof such a decisionin those circumstancesis lawful provided that the personconcerned can take proper cognisanceofit. If, on theother hand, the addressee ofthe decisionconsiders that he is unableto understandit, it is up to him to askthe institution,with all due diligence,to providehim with a translationeither into the languageused in the complaintor into his mothertongue. If sucha requestis madewithout delay, the time-limit only startsto run from the dateon which that translation is notified to the official concerned,unless the institutioncan show, without any room for doubt on that point, that the official was able to take proper cognisanceofboth the operativepart andthe groundsofthe decisionrejecting his complaintin the languageused in the initial notification. . Again on the questionof admissibility,a clearer definition was provided of the term 'act adverselyaffecting' within the meaningof Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulationsof officials of the EuropeanCommunities ('the Staff Regulations')in Joined CasesT-95/00 and T-96100hur-Gora and Dubighv Commission(orderof 3 April2001 [2001]ECR-SC II-379) and Case T-243/99Buisson v Commission(udgment of 20 June2001 [2001] ECR-SC II-601), in thatthe Court of First Instancemade clear that, wherea rule which an institutionhas undertaken to respectand which is, therefore,binding on it - suchas a provisionof a noticeof competition- givescandidates the right to apply for review of decisionsnot to admitthem, it is the decisionfollowing review, andnot the initial decisionnot to admit, which must be consideredto be the act adverselyaffecting the personconcerned. . The victim of a hang-glidingaccident, to whomthe benefitsof Article 73 of the Staff Regulationson insuranceagainst the risk of occupational r2tr2t diseaseand accidentwere not granted,disputed the legality of that decision. In his action, he called into questionthe legality of the provision which was the legal basisof the contesteddecision, namely Article 4(1Xb), third indent, of the ruleson the insuranceof officials of the EuropeanCommunities against the risk of accidentand of occupationaldisease, with the resultthat the Court of First Instanceconsidered that an objectionof illegality was beforeit. According to that provision accidentsdue to 'practiceof sportsregarded as dangerous,such as boxing, karate, parachuting, speleology, underwater fishing and explorationand withexploration withbreathing equipment breathing including equipment containersincluding for containers forthe supplysupplythe of air or oxygen' are not coveredby Article 73 of the Staff Regulations.By judgmentof 20 September2001 in CaseT-l7Ll00 Spruytv Commission,not yet publishedin the ECR, the Court of First Instanceheld that, since that provision defines the conceptof sports regardedas dangerouswhich are excluded from the risk cover provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulationsby referenceto an indicative list of sports consideredto be dangerous,it breachesthe principle of legal certaintyand is, on that ground, illegal. The principle of legal certaintyprecludes a situationin which an official who plans to practisea sport not mentionedin the list in Article 4(1Xb), third indent, of the rules is obliged to assess,whether that sport, in termsof its possiblesimilarity with oneof thoseon that list, might be regarded as dangerousby the administration. Nor can that principle allow the administration,faced with a requestfor applicationof Article 73 of the Staff Regulationsin the event of an accidentsuffered while practisinga sport, a 'discretion' as to whetheror not that sport belongsto the categoryof sports regardedas dangerouswithin the meaningof the rules. . The Court of First Instanceheld in its judgmentof 27 June2001 in CaseT-2l4lOO X v Commission[2001] ECR-SCtr-663 that a decisionby an institutionto deductfrom the salaryof an official, without his consent,a sum equivalentto equivalent tothe amountthe he amount oweshe toowes tothat institutionthat byinstitution wayby ofway ofcosts awardedawardedcosts to it in earlier proceedingshas no legal basis. The option for an institution, in its relationswith staffunder the StaffRegulations, to obtainpayment by set- off, is liable to seriouslyrestrict the rights of officials of the institutionsto disposeof their salariesfreely. In the absence,in the body of the Staff Regulations,of any expressprovision, within the meaning of the first paragraphof Article 62, authorisingit to do so, an institutionmaynot, without the consentof the personconcerned, retain, by way of set-off, a part of the remunerationof remuneration ofan officialan officialwhose right whose toright remuneration to is remuneration enshrinedis in enshrined ArticleArticlein 62 of the Staff Regulations. r22r22 . To concludethis brief surveyof decidedcases concerning staff of the institutions,mention must be madeof the judgmentof 6 March 2001 in Case T-I92199Dunnett and Othersv EIB [2001]ECR-SC II-313, which annulled the salary statementsof the applicants,who were staff of the European InvestmentBank, in so far as the systemof special conversionrates for transfersin a currencyother than the Belgianor Luxembourgfranc up to a certain percentageof net monthly salary was not applied in them. In anticipationof the changeoverto the Euro, the ManagementCommittee of the EIB had decided,on ltr June1998, to abolishthe specialconversion rates for all its staff from I January1999. However,the Court of First Instanceheld that the staff representativeswere not properly consultedin the procedure leadingto the adoptionof that decision. It pointedout inter alia thatthe EIB was obliged to consult staff representativesunder a general principle of employmentlaw commonto the laws of the MemberStates according to which an employercan unilaterally withdraw a financial advantagewhich he has freely grantedto his employeeson a continuousbasis only after consultation of those employeesor their representatives. It made clear that such consultationmust be such as to have an influenceon the substanceof the measureadopted, which implied that it must be 'timely' and 'bona fide'. In this casethe Court of First Instanceheld that the Bank breachedthe general principle of employmentlaw expressedin Article 24 of. the agreementon representationof staff at the EIB in that it did not hold bonafide consultations with staffrepresentatives. II. Actions for damages As regardsthe EC Treaty,almost all thejudgments concluding proceedings for damagesrelated to agriculture,whether problems connected with the rules on the importation of bananas37 or fisheriesproducts 38 in the Community, Judgmentsin CaseT-1/99 T" Port v Commrssion[2001] ECR II-465 (underappeal, Ca$e C-122/41P), in Case T-18199 Cordis v Commission[2001] ECR II-913, in Case T-30/99 Bocchi Food Trade Internütionnt v Commission[2001] ECR II-943, in Case T-52/99 T. Pon v Commission[200U ECRII-981 (underappeal, Case C-213101P), in Corrcfrica ünd Dole Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission,cited above, in CaseT-2199 T. Port v Council I}AQU ECR II-2093, and in Case T-3199Banatrading v Council [2001] ECR TT-2123. Judgmentof 23 October 2001 in CaseT-155/99 Dieckrnann& Hansen v Comrnission, not yet publishedin the ECR (under appeal,Case C-492fi1 P). 12:\ milk quotas3e or fisheriesquoks. o In only one judgment was it held that the set of conditions which triggers the non-contractualliability of the Community forCommunity fordamage causeddamageby caused bythe theinstitutions wasinstitutions wasfulfilled fulfilled(Jasma vv(Jasma Counciland Commission).ln anothercase, under Article 34 CS, a provision which applieswhere the damagealleged derives from a Commissiondecision which is annulledby the Court of Justice,the Court of First Instanceordered the Commissionto repaya sumunduly paid (udgment of 10 October2001 in CaseT-171199 Corus UKv Commission,not yet publishedin the ECR). . By thatjudgment, the Commissionwas orderedto pay to Corus UK a sumof more thanEUR 3 million with interest. Followinga judgmentof the Court Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance reducingInstance the reducing theamount ofamount ofthe thefine fineimposed onimposed onthatthat company, the Commissionhad repaid Euro L2 million which was the differencebetween differencethe between amountthe paid amount andpaid thatand set that byset theby Courtthe ofCourt Firstof Instance,Instance,First but hadbut refusedhad to refused payto interestpay on interest theon sumthe repaid.sum repaid.The CourtThe ofCourt ofFirst InstanceInstanceFirst held that, in so doing, the Commissionfailed to take a step necessaryto comply withcomply withthat judgment.that judgment.In Inthe casethe of case ofa judgment a annullingjudgment orannulling orreducingreducing the thefine fineimposed onimposed onan undertakingan forundertaking forinfringement ofinfringement ofthe theECSC TreatyTreatyECSC competitionrules, there is an obligationincumbent on the Commissionto repay allrepay allor, or,in insome cases,some partcases, partof ofthe thefine finepaid paidby bythe theundertaking ininundertaking question, inquestion, inso farso faras thatas paymentthat must payment bemust describedbe as described aas suma undulysum paidpaidunduly following followingthe theannulment decision.annulment decision.That Thatobligation appliesobligation notapplies notonly onlyto tothethe principal principalamount ofamount ofthe thefine fineoverpaid, butoverpaid, butalso toalso todefault interestdefault oninterest onthatthat amount. amount.It Itstressed, instressed, inthat thatconnection, thatconnection, thata afailure failureto toreimburse suchsuchreimburse interestcould resultin the unjustenrichment of the Community,which would be contrarybe tocontrary tothe generalthe principles general ofprinciples ofCommunity law.Community law.As Asthe claimthe underunderclaim Article 34 CS, which wasbrought after a reasonabletime hadpassed, was well founded in principle, compensationto the applicantcorresponding to the amountof interestthat should have been reimbursed together with theprincipal sum wassum awardedwas to awarded tothe applicant.applicant.the Judgmentsin CaseT-533193 Bouma v Counciland Commission[20019 ECR n-203 (underappeal, Case C-L62101 P), in CaseT-73194 Beusmnns v Counciland Commission [200UECR lI-223 (under appeal, Case C-163/01 P), in CaseT-76194 Jansmnv Council and Commission[200U ECR fAß andin CaseT-L43197 Van den Berg v Counciland Commissiont200U ECR II-277 (underappeal, Case C-164/01 P). Judgmentof 6 December2001 in CaseT-196199 Area Covaand Othersv Counciland Commission,not yet publishedin the ECR. 124 . It is settled case-law that the non-contractualliability of the Communityunder the secondparagraph of Article 288 EC may be incurred only if a setof conditionsrelating to the illegality of the conductof which the Communityinstitutions are accused,the occurrenceof actualdamage and the existenceof a causallink betweenthe unlawful conductand the harm alleged is fulfilled. As regardsthe liability of the Communityfor damagecaused to individuals,the Court of Justiceheld in Case C-352/98 P Bergadermand Goupil [2000] ECR I-5291 that the conductalleged against the Commission must involvemust ainvolve sfficientlya sfficientlyserious breachserious ofbreach ofa arule ofrule oflaw intendedlaw to intended toconferconfer rights on individuals. In the caseswhich it decidedin 2001,the Court of First Instancehad to assesswhether those two aspectsof illegality, that is to say, that the rule breachedis intendedto conferrights on individualsand that the breachis sufficientlyserious, were proven. For instanceit was requiredto determinewhether the rulesallegedly breached were of the type intendedto confer rights on individuals. The principle of proportionalityand the principle of theprotection of legitimateexpectations are rulesof that type (EmesaSugar v Council,cited above). On the other hand, no rights areconferred on individualsby the Agreementestablishing the WTO and andits itsannexes (iudgments annexes in(iudgments inCordis vCordis vCommission, Bocchi Commission, BocchiFood FoodTradeTrade Int ernationalInt v ernational vCommis sion Commis andsionT. and PoT. rt Po rtv vCommi s sion Commis (Tsion -52(T | 99),-52| cited99), above),above),cited by Article 253 EC (EmesaSugar v Council), or by the principle of relative stability- this principle, laid down by the fisherieslegislation, is intendedto ensurefor eachMember Statea shareof the Community'stotal allowable catches- catches- (Area Cova(Area and Cova Othersand v Others vCouncil andCouncil Commission,and cited Commission, above).above).cited As regardsthe questionwhether a breachof Communitylaw is sufficiently serious,the Court of First Instanceapplied a testwhich turnedon the question whether the Community institution concernedhad manifestly and gravely disregardedthe limits on the discretionavailable to the institution,bearing in mind that wherethe institutionin questionhad only a considerablyreduced or even no discretion, the mere infringementof Community law might be sufficientto establishthe existenceof a sufficientlyserious breach. In its judgmenLin Comafricaand DoIe Fresh Fruit Europe v Commission, cited above,the Court of First Instanceheld that, where an institutionhas a considerablyreduced discretion, a finding of an error which, in analogous circumstances,an administrativeauthority exercising ordinary care and diligencewould not have committed,will support the conclusionthat the conductof the Communityinstitution was unlawful in sucha way as to render the Communityliable under Article 288 EC. Given the facts of the case,it r25r25 held that the mistakesmade by the Commissionwhen it adoptedthe contested regulations ar did not constitute mistakes which would not have been committedin similar circumstancesby an administrativeauthority exercising ordinarycare and diligence. In itsjudgmentinDiecfunann & HansenvCommission,cited above, the Court of First Instance,first, recognisedthat the Commissionhas a wide discretion where itwhere itadopts measures adopts implementing measures arrangements implementingfor arrangements forthe supervisionthe ofof supervision importationsof fishery products,such as whether a third country is to be enteredin or removedfrom the list of third countriesauthorised to exportsuch productsto the Community. It went on to hold that the institutiondid not overstepthe boundsof its discretionin the presentcase when it reconsidered its assessmentof Kazaktrstan'sability to ensurethat, so far asconcerns caviar, healthconditions at leastequivalent to thoseprovided for by Directive9tl493a weremet and whenit decidedto withdrawits decisionto authoriseimports of the aforementionedproduct into the Community. The Court obseruedinter alia that, by adoptingthe contesteddecision, the Commissionfully observed its obligationsto take accountof requirementsrelating to the public interest suchas the protectionof consumersor the protectionof the healthand life of humansand animals, in its efforts to achieveobjectives of the common agriculturalpolicy and to accordto the protectionofpublic healthprecedence over economicconsiderations. . Finally, in its judgment in Area Cova and Others v Council and Commission,cited above, the Courtof First Instanceobserved that in the event of the principle of no-fault liability of the Communitybeing recognisedin Communitylaw, a preconditionfor such liability would be the cumulative satisfactionof three conditions,namely the reality of the damageallegedly suffered, thesuffered, causalthe link causal linkbetween it between itand theand actthe on act theon partthe ofpart ofthe CommunityCommunitythe institutions,and the unusualand specialna.ture of that darruge. In order to The mistakesrecorded related to possiblediscrepancies, when the reductior/adjustment coefficients were fixed, for determining the quantity of bananasto be allocated to each operator in categories A and B under the tariff quotas, between the figures communicated by the competent national authorities and those from the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) or other data concerning the quantities of bananasmarketed or imported into the Community during the corresponding reference periods. Council Directive 9Ll493lEEC of 22 July l99I laying down the health conditions for the productionand the placing on the market of fishery products(OJ 1991L268,p. 15) for human consumption. r26r26 assesswhether the damagein question, consistingin a reduction in the applicants'fishing opportunities, was unusual in character,the Court assessed whetherit exceededthe limits of the economicrisks inherentin the activities of the fishing industryand concludedthat it did not. n[. Applications ftlr interim relief Thejudge hearingapplications for interim relief heardapplications for interim measuresin almost all fields of litigation, particularly those relating to competition,a3 State aid, a anti-dumpingmeasures, a5 Community funding 6 Int*r alia" ürdsrs *f the Presidentof th* {lerurtclf First Instance$f l? January 2üül in CaseT-342100 R P*rolesssnrc ßnd,$ü2n v ü*mmissinru[?üü1] ECR II-67" üf ?8 May in ilase T-53/01 R PosteIralinne v Commrssi*n[2001] ECR II-14?9, of 26 Octobsr ?üü1 in Case T-1841ü1R IMS Heulth v Commission(under äppeal,Cass C-481/01 P{R)}, üt' t5 November äüül in Case T-1511ü1R fra*lts ,sysremDeutsr:kland v ü*mnzissfon,tlt 2ü Decemher?üü1 in CaseT-:131ü1 R üslersir:hischePostspnrAasse ru{lr;rutrnfssipn :lnri in Case T-314iül R ffrtrik.fur Ar"brit und Wirtstkay?v {"-rrurrrssiunr nüt yet pul':lishedin thn HüR" ü)idcr uf the Presiclent*t ihe {-*urt nl'First Instanee*f 19 üer:emh*r 2üütr rn J*insd {läses "t-J95/ül R and T-lül/ü1 R {J*vrrwnent r4l'üihralt*r v C*rnrni,s,si#ru,nü{ yst puf:lishndin fhe HCR. ürcler nf the Fresidentof the C*urt nf First Instanüeof I August 2ü01 in CaseT-132/ü1 Rffurnlrlliuges nntl üthers v Cotnmission[2üü11 ECR trI-2307(annulled by ürder uf the Prrsidentr:f the Caurt r:f Justiceof 14 December2001 in CaseC-404/01 PtR)), ncr yet puhlishedin the HCR). ürders nf the Prssidentr:f'thn Cnuru r:f First Instanceof 15 January2üü1 in Case T-?411ü0R Is Cunne v Cmnrnission[2ü01] ECR II-3?, of 18 üctober 2001 in Cas* T-lqdfül R,4rislr,rrrfsf#P*nryistimio ?'hessntsnlfusv Carnmfssroru,rsf 22 Octaher 20ü1 in CascT-l41lti1 R Enton'rv t]*mrnissionand of ? December?001 in CasnT-192101 R lrr:r v Comrmsslon,not yet puhlisheclin the ECR. l'17 and institutionallaw. a7There were alsoseveral applications to cancelor vary an interim order, which were all dismissed.{ . The applicationsfor interim measureswhich were dismissedwere dismissedeither on the groundthat they were inadmissible,ae or becausethey did notdid fulfilnot fulfilone orone orother ofother ofthe conditionsthe required conditions forrequired thefor measurethe requestedrequested measure to tobe granted,be thatgranted, isthat isto tosay, urgencysay, andurgency aand primaa facieprima facie exe. exe.Amongst thetheAmongst decisionsdismissing such applications,that adopted in Poste ltaliane v Commissionis Commission ofis noteof asnote theas judge the hearingjudge an hearing applicationan for application forinterim reliefinterim hadhadrelief to assesswhether the conditionof urgencywas fulfilled in a caseconcerning the openingup to competitionof servicespreviously the preserve,in this instance, of Poste ltaliane. By decision of 2l December2000, $ the Commissionordered the Italian Republicto endthe infringementof Article 82 EC in conjunction with Article 86(1) EC consistingin the exclusion of competition,to the advantageof PosteItaliane, with respectto the day- or time-certaindelivery phase of hybrid electronicmail services. As the damagealleged by Posteltaliane was of a financialnature, the judge hearingthe applicationfor interim relief pointedout that suchdamage cannot, save in exceptionalcircumstances, be regardedas irreparableor even as reparablewith reparable withdiffrculty, diffrculty,since itsince itmay ultimatelymay beultimately thebe subjectthe ofsubject offinancialfinancial compensation.In accordancewith theseprinciples, the suspensionrequested would be justified if it appearedthat, without such a measure,the applicant would be in a situationwhich might jeopardiseits very existence.However, Ordersof the Presidentof the Court of First Instanceof 15 Januaryz0/0^l in Case T-236/00R Staunerand Othersv Parliamentand Commission[2001] ECR tr-15, and of 26 January2001 in CaseT-353/00 R Le Penv Parliament[2001] ECR lI-125. Ordersof the Presidentof the Court of First Instanceof 5 September2001 in Case T-74100R Anegodanv Commission(under appeal,Case C-440/01 P(R)), of 12 September2001 in CaseT-L32|0L R Euroalliagesand Othersv Commissionand of 8 October2001 in CaseT-236/00 RII Staunerand Othersv Parliamentand Commission, not yet publishedin the ECR. Inter alia, ordersof the Presidentof the Courtof First Instanceof 15 Januaryz0/0^I in Staunerand Othersv Parliamentand Commission,cited above,and of 5 December 2001in CaseT-216101 R Reisebar* v Commission(under appeal, Case C-480/01 P(R)) and in CaseT-2L9/01 R Commenbankv Commission,not yet publishedin the ECR. CommissionDecision 200LlL76lECof 2I December2000 concerningproceedings pursuantto Article 86 of theEC Treatyin relationto theprovision of certainnew postal serviceswith a guaranteedday- or time-certaindelivery in Italy (OJ200LL63, p. 59). r28 it addedthat, since Poste Italiane, as provider of the universalservice, is entrustedwith a task of generaleconomic interest, within the meaningof Article 86(2)EC, performanceof which is essential,the suspensionrequested would alsobe justified if it wereproved that exclusionfrom the reservedarea of the day- or time-certaindelivery phase of the hybrid electronicmail service would preventthe applicantfrom carrying out successfullythe task entrusted to it until a ruling wasgiven on the merits. such proof would be furnishedif it itwere shown,were inshown, inthe thelight lightof ofthe financialthe financialconditions inconditions inwhich thewhich thetask ofoftask generaleconomic general interest economichas interest beenhas performed been successfully performed up successfully toup thatto point, that point,thatthat the exclusiveright concernedis absolutelynecessary to theperfonnance ofthat task by the holder of the right. since the applicantfailed to furnish such proof, and the balanceof interestsinclined in favour of maintainingthe contesteddecision, the applicationcould not be granted. The caseleading to the order in Duales systemDeutschland v commission, dismissingthe applicationfor suspensionof operation,raised a problemof a differentnature. By decisionof 20 April 200l, st the commissionfound that Der Grüne Punkt - DualesSystem Deutschland (DSD), the only company 'collective' operatingthroughout Germany a systemfor the recoveryof used salespackaging from the final consumeror from near the consumer'shome, abusedits dominantposition within the meaningof Article 82EC by imposing on undertakingsparticipating in its system unfair prices and contractual 'Der conditionswhere the useof the GrünePunkt' logo, which shouldappear on all the packagingof the participatingundertaking, did not signiff that DSD in fact dischargedthe obligationto disposeof waste. It shouldbe pointedout 'Der that the Grüne Punkt' trade mark is a collective trade mark duly registeredwith the Germanauthorities. In its order, the judge hearingthe applicationfor interim relief first outlined the essentialissue in the casebefore him. He took the view, in that regard, that the principalquestion it raisedwas whether the licensingscheme imposed by the owner of the trade mark was justified by the need to preservethe specificsubject-matter of that right or, to put it anotherway, whether,in the circumstancesof the presentcase, the trademark wasused by DSD asa means of abusingits dominantposition. The in-depthstudy needed to resolvethose questionscould not, however, be carried out by the judge hearing the applicationfor interim measuresin an examinationof the merits,primafacie, CommissionDecision 200I1463/ECof 20 April 2001 relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article 82 of the EC Treaty (CaseCOMP D3134493DSD) (OJ 2001 L 166, p. 1). 129 of the action in the main proceedings. Going on to considerwhether the immediateoperation of the decision in questionwould causeserious and irreparabledamage to the applicant,he held that no proof had beenadduced that immediateoperation would jeopardiseDSD's system. In any event,the judge stressedthat the balancingof the applicant'sinterest in obtainingthe interim measuresought, the public interestin the operationof a Commission decisionadopted under Article 82 EC and the interestsof the intervening parties in the interim proceedings,which would be directly affectedby the possiblesuspension of the contesteddecision, called for the dismissalof this application. He took the view, on that point, that in thosevery particular circumstances,the public interestin compliancewith propertyrights in general and intellectualproperty rights in particular,as expressedin Articles 30 EC and 295 EC, cannotprevail over the Commission'sinterest in bringing an immediateend to the infringementof Article 82 EC which it considersit has establishedand, accordingly, in introducingfavourable conditions for theentry of DSD's competitorsinto the marketconcerned. . Three orders for suspensionof operationof measureswere made in 2001 (orders2001 in(orders Lein LePen vPen vParliament, EuroalliagesParliament, and Euroalliages Othersand v Others vCommissionCommission and /M^Sand Health /M^S vHealth vCommission, cited Commission, above).above).cited By Byorder orderin inLe LePen vPen vParliamenl, Parliamenl,operation ofoperation ofthe thedecision takendecision bytaken bythethe Presidentof the EuropeanParliament in the form of a declarationdated 23 23Ocnber Ocnber2000 was2000 suspendedwas inasmuch suspendedas inasmuch thatas declarationthat constituted declaration aaconstituted decisionof decision theof Europeanthe Parliament Europeanby Parliament whichby thewhich Parliamentthe took Parliament formaltook notenoteformal of ofthe terminationthe oftermination ofthe termthe ofterm ofoffice officeof ofMr MrLe LePen asPen aas amember ofmember ofthethe EuropeanParliament. In his assessmentof the conditionthat theremust be a primn facieprimn faciecase, thecase, judgethe hearingjudge thehearing applicationthe for application forinterim reliefinterim relieftook thethe took view thatview onethat of one ofthe argumentsthe put arguments forwardput -forward - according to according towhich thewhich rolethe ofofrole the theParliament inParliament ina aprocedure terminatingprocedure theterminating theterm termof ofoffice officeof ofone ofone ofitsits Memberson the basisof Article I2Q) of the 1976Act, cited above,is not a matter ofmatter ofa merely a dependentmerely power dependent -power - was ofwas ofa serious a nature serious andnature couldand not,not,could therefore,be dismissedprtma facie. ln lnmaking themaking orderthe inorder inEuroalliages andEuroalliages Othersand vOthers v Comrnission, cited Comrnission, above,above,cited the judge hearing the applicationfor interim relief orderedthat imports of ferro-siliconoriginating in the People'sRepublic of China,Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine shouldbe subjectto registrationwithout provision of securityby importers. This case originatedwith CommissionDecision 200ll230lBC terminatingthe anti-dumpingproceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon 130 originatingin severalcountries, 52 suspension of the operationof which the applicantssought, primarily, as regardsimports from certainof the countries in question. As the Commissiondid not questionthat there wasa primafacie case,it was the conditionrelating to urgencywhich essentiallyfell to be considered. In that regard, the judge hearing the applicationrecalled that damageof a pecuniarynature cannot, save in exceptionalcircumstances, be regardedas irreparable,or even as being reparableonly with difficulty, if it can ultimately be the subject of financial compensation. Damage of a pecuniarynature, which would not disappearsimply as a resultof compliance by the institution concernedwith the judgment in the main proceedings, constituteseconomic loss which could be madegood by the meansof redress providedfor in the Treaty,in particularin Articles235 EC and288 EC, On applicationof thoseprinciples, an interimmeasure is justified if it appearsthat, without that measure,the applicantwould be in a situationthat could imperil its existencebefore final judgment in the main action. In such a case the disappearanceof the applicantbefore the decisionon the substanceof the case would makeit impossiblefor thatparty to instituteany judicial proceedingsfor compensation.In thepresent case the applicantshad not succeededin showing that the impairmentof their economicviability was such that rationalisation measureswould not be sufficientto enablethem to continueproducing ferro- siliconuntil final judgmentin the mainaction, However,taking account of all the circumstancesof the case,he observedinter alia that the injury suffered by the applicantswould not disappearsimply as a resultof the Commission's compliancewith a judgmentannulling the contesteddecision and that, in that regard,reparation, at a later stage,of the damagesustained under Article 235 EC andthe secondparagraph of Article 288 EC, would,at thevery least,be uncertain,given the difficulty of showingthat the Commissionhad manffestly andgravely disregarded the limits on its discretionin assessingthe Community interest. In the circumstances,the conditionrelating to urgencywas held to be fulfilled. Finally, having balancedthe interestsinvolved, inter alia those of the importers,exporters and users,he limited the effects of the interim measureto the absoluteminimum necessaryto preservethe interestsof the applicantsuntil judgmentin the main action. However,by orderof 14 December2001 in CaseC-404/01P(R) Commission v Euroalliagesand Others,cited above,the Presidentof the Court of Justice CommissionDecision 200ll230lEC terminatingthe anti-dumpingproceeding concerning imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, the People's Republic of China, Kazakhstan,Russia, Ukraine and Venezuela(OJ 2001 L 84, p. 36). 131 did didnot upholdnot theuphold findingthe findingof ofurgency madeurgencyby made bythe Presidentthe of President ofthe Courtthe ofofCourt First Instance. He took the view that the irreparablenature of the damage could not be establishedgiven the uncertaintyover the possibilityof success of an action for damages. The casewas referredback to the Court of First Instance. This surveyof the mostsignificantjudgments of 2}}Lconcludeswith the order in inIMS HealthIMS vHealth vCommission, cited Commission, above,cited whichabove, suspendedwhich the suspended operationthe ofof operation the Commissionthe decision Commission imposingdecision interin imposing interinmeasures oz measures ozIMS HealthIMS (IMS).Health (IMS). 5353 By thatdecision, the Commissionhad instructedIMS, a companyactive in the field of compilation of data on sales and prescriptionsof pharmaceutical products, to grant a licence for use of its '1 860 brick structure', a geographicalanalysis of the German market, which, according to the Commission,was a de facto industrystandard on the relevantmarket. The Commissiontook the view that the refusalby IMS to grant such a licence constituted aconstituted aprima primafacie facieabuse ofabuse ofa adominant position,dominant position,prevented newnewprevented competitorsfrom entering or remaining on the market for sales data for pharmaceuticalproducts and was liable to causeserious and irreparableharm to two competitors,NDC Health andAZYX. Having expressedthe view that the extent of its review of the condition relating torelating tothe needthe forneed fora primaa facieprima faciecase did case didnot varynot varyaccording to according towhetherwhether the decisionsuspension of the operationof which was soughtimposed interim measuresor measures orconcluded anconcluded anadministrative procedure,administrative theprocedure, judgethe judgehearing thethehearing applicationfor interim relief foundthat the caseessentially raised the question whether the Commissionwas entitled to hold that IMS, the holder of a copyrighton the I 860 brick structure,abused its dominantposition, within the meaningof Article 82 EC, where it invoked that copyright in refusing to licenseuse by its competitorsand whetherthe Commissioncould impose,by way of an interim measure,the issueof licencesfor use of copyright. Since the in-depthanalysis required by suchquestions, which entailedan assessment 'exceptional of whetherthe circumstances'identified by the Court of Justice sa in Magill and Bronner 55 were fulfilled in this case, could not be CommissionDecision of 3 July2001 relating to a proceedingpursuant to Article 82 EC (CaseCOMP D3/38 .044 - NDC Health/IMSHealth: Interim measures). Judgmentof the Courtof Justicein JoinedCases C-24ll9L P and C-242191P RTEand ITP v Commission[1995] ECR I-743. Judgmentof theCourt of Justicein CaseC-7/97 Bronner [1998] ECR I-7791. r32r32 conductedin the courseof interim proceedings,it washeld that the condition relatingto a prima facie casewas fulfilled. Similarly, it was held that the conditionrelating to urgencywas fulfilled both becausethe licensingof useof the copyrightcould result in lastingand serious harm to the holder of that copyrightand becausethe developmentof market conditionscaused by the issueofthose licencescould no longerbe alteredby the annulmentof the decisionin question. Finally, balancingthe respectiveinterests of the parties to the dispute, in particularthose of the two competitorsof IMS, the public interestin respect for property rights in generaland intellectualproperty rights in particular, expresslycited in Articles 30 and 295 EC, wasemphasised and it waspointed out that the mere fact that the applicantinvoked and sought to protect its copyright over the I 860 brick structure for economic reasonsdid not undermineits entitlementto rely on the exclusiveright, guaranteedby national law to promoteinnovation. 133 B Compositionof the Court of First Instance (Orclerof precedenceas at 20 September2001) First row, from Ieft to rigltt^' JudgeR. Garcfa-Valdecasasy Fernändez; Judge M. Jaeger; Judge R.M. Moura Ramos; PresidentB. Vesterdorf;Judge J.D. Cooke; JudgeM. Vilaras; JudgeK. Lenaerts. Secondrow, Second fromrow, fromIefi Iefito toright:right: JudgeH. Legal;Judge A.W.H. Meij; JudgeJ. Pirrung;Judge P. Lindh;Judge V. Tiili; Judge J. Azlzi; JudgeP. Mengozzi;Judge N.J. Forwood;H. Jung, Registrar. 135 1. The Members of the Court of First Instance (in order of their entry into office) Bo Vesterdorf Born 1945; Lawyer-linguist at the Court of Justice; Administrator in the Ministry of Justice; Examining Magistrate; Legal Attachd in the Permanent Representation of Denmark to the European Communities; Temporary Judge at the 6stre Landsret; Head of the Administrative Law Division in the Ministry of Justice; Head of Division in the Ministry of Justice; University Lecturer; Mernber of the Steering Committee on Human Rights at the Council of Europe (CDDH), and subsequently Member of the Bureau of the CDDH; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 25 September 1989; President of the Court of First Instance since 4 March 1998. Rafael Garcfa-Valdecasas y Fernändez Born 1946; Abogado del Estado (at Ja6n and Granada); Registrar to the Economic and Administrative Court of Ja6n, and subsequently of Cordova; Member of the Bar (Jadn and Granada); Head of the Spanish State Legal Service for Cases before the Court of Justice of the European Communities; Head of the Spanish delegation in the working group created at the Council of the European Communities with a view to establishing the Court of First Instance of the European Communities; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 25 September 1989. Koenraad Lenaerts Born 1954;lic.iuris, Ph.D. in Law (KatholiekeUniversiteit Leuven); Master of Laws, Master in Public Administration (Harvard University); AssociateProfessor, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; Visiting Professorat the Universitiesof Burundi, Strasbourgand Harvard;Professor at the Collegeof Europe,Bruges; Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice;Member of the BrusselsBar; Judge of the Court of First Instancesince 25 September1989. r37 Virpi Tiili Born 19421;Doctor of Laws of the University of Helsinki; assistant lecturer in civil and commercial law at the University of Helsinki; Director of Legal Affairs and Commercial Policy at the Central Chamberof Commerceof Finland; Director Generalof the Office for ConsumerProtection, Finland; Judge at the Court of First Instance since18 January1995. Pernilla Lindh Born 1945;Law graduateof the Universityof Lund; Judge(assessor), Court of Appeal, Stockholm; Legal Adviser and Director General at the Legal Serviceof the Trade Departmentat the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; Judgeat the Court of First Instancesince 18 January1995. Josef Azizi Born L948;Doctor of Laws and Bachelorof Sociologyand Economics of the University of Vienna; Lecturer and senior lecturer at the Vienna School of Economicsand the Faculty of Law of the University of Vienna; Ministerialrat and Head of Department at the Federal Chancellery;Judge at the Court of First Instancesince 18 January 1995. Andr6 Potocki Born 1950;Judge, Court of Appeal, Paris,and AssociateProfessor at Paris X Nanterre University (199a); Head of European and InternationalAffairs of the Ministry of Justice(1991); Vice-President of the Tribunal de GrandeInstance, Paris (1990); Secretary-Generalto the First Presidentof the Cour de cassation(1988); Judge at the Court of First Instancefrom 18 September1995 to 20 September2001. 138 Rui Manuel Gens de Moura Ramos Born 1950; Professor, Law Faculty, Coimbra, and at the Law Faculty of the Catholic University, Oporto; Jean Monnet Chair; Course Director (French language) at The Hague Academy of International Law (1984) and Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law, Paris I University (1995); Pornrguese Government delegate to the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (Uncitral), The Hague Conference on Private International Law, the International Commission on Civil Status and the Council of Europe Committee on Nationality; member of the Institute of International Law; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 18 September 1995. John D. Cooke Born 1944:' called to the Bar of lreland 1966; admitted also to the Bars of England & Wales, of Northern Ireland and of New South Wales; Practising barrister 1966 to 1996; admitted to the Inner Bar in lreland (Senior Counsel) 1980 and New South Wales 1991; President of the Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community (CCBE) 1985 to 1986; Visiting Fellow, Faculty of Law, University College Dublin; Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators; President of the Royal Zoological Society of Ireland 1987 to 1990; Bencher of the Honourable Society of Kings Inns, Dublin; Honorary Bencher of Lincoln's Inn, London; Judge at the Court of First Instance since l0 January 1996. Marc Jaeger Born 1954; lawyer; attachö de justice, delegated to the Public Attorney's Office; Judge, Vice-President of the Luxembourg District Court; teacher at the Centre universitaire de Luxembourg (Luxembourg University Centre); member of the judiciary on secondment, Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice from 1986; Judge at the Court of First Instance since 11 Julv 1996. 139 Jörg Pirrung Born 1940; academicassistant at the University of Marburg; civil servant in the German Federal Ministry of Justice (Section for InternationalCivil ProcedureLaw, Sectionfor Children'sLaw); Head of the Sectionfor Private InternationalLaw in the FederalMinistry of Justice; Head of a Suffiivision for Civil Law; Judge at the Court of First Instancesince I I June 1997. Paolo PaoloMengozziMengozzi Born 1938; Professorof International Law and holder of the Jean Monnet Chair of European Community law at the University of Bologna; Doctor horwris causa of the Carlos III University, Madrid; visiting professorat the Johns Hopkins University (Bologna Center), the Universities of St. Johns (New YorD, Georgetown, Paris-II, Georgia Georgia(Athens) (Athens)and andthe theInstitut Institutuniversitaire universitaireinternationalinternational (Luxembourg); co-ordinator of the European Business Law Pallas Program of the University of Nijmegen; member of the consultative committeeof the Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities on public procurement; Under-Secretaryprocurement; of Under-Secretary ofState forState forTrade andTrade Industryand duringduringIndustry the Italian tenure of the Presidencyof the Council; member of the working group of the European Community on the World Trade Organisation(WTO) and director of the 1997 sessionof The Hague Academy of InternationalLaw researchcentre devotedto the WTO; Judgeat the Court of First Instancesince 4 March 1998. Arjen'W.H. Meü Born 1944; Justiceat the SupremeCoun of the Netherlands(1996); Judge and Vice-President at the College van Beroep voor het Bdrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (1986); Judge Substinrteat the Court of Appeal for Social Security, and SubstituteMember of the Administrative Court for Customs Tariff Matters; Legal Secretary at the Court of Justice of the European Communities(1980); Lecturer in EuropeanLaw in the Law Faculty of the University of Groningenand ResearchAssistant at the University of ofMichigan LawMichigan School;Law StaffSchool; MemberStaff ofMember ofthe Internationalthe SecretariatSecretariatInternational of the ArnsterdamChanrber of Commerce(1970); Judgeat the Court of First Instancesince 17 September1998. 140 Mihalis Yilaras Born 1950;lawyer (1974-1980); national expert with the LegalService of the Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities, then Principal Administrator in Directorate General V (Employment, Industrial Relations,social Affairs); Junior officer, Junior Member and, since t999, Member of the Greek Council of State;Associate Member of the Superior Special Coun of Greece; Member of the Central LegislativeDrafting Committee of Greece(1996-1998); Director of the Legal Servicein the GeneralSecretariat of the Greek Government; Judgeat the Court of First Insrancesince 17 September1998. Nicholas James Forwood Born 1948; graduated1969 from CambridgeUniversity (Mechanical Sciencesand Law); called to the English Bar in 1970, thereafter practisingin London(1971-1979) and also in Brussels(1979-1999X called to the Irish Bar in 1982;appointed Queen's Counsel in 1987, and Bencherof the Middle Temple1998; representative of the Bar of Englandand Walesat the Council of the Bars and Law Societiesof the EU (ccBE) andChairman of theCCBE's PermanentDelegation to the EuropeanCourt of Justice;Treasurer of the EuropeanMaritime Law organisation (board member since 1991); and a Governing Board memberof the World Trade Law Association;Judge at the Court of First Instancesince 15 December1999. Hubert Legal Born 1954; Maitre des Requötes at the French Conseil d'Etat from 1991 onwards; graduate of the Ecole normale sup6rieure de Saint-Cloud and of the Ecole nationale d'administration; Associate Professor of English (1979-1985); rapporreur and subsequently Commissaire du Gouvernement in proceedings before the judicial sections of the Conseil d'Etat (1988-1993): legal adviser in the Permanent Representation of the French Republic to the United Nations in New York (1993-1997); Legal Secretary in the Chambers of Judge Puissochet at the Court of Justice (1997-2ml); Judge ar rhe Court of First Instance since 19 September 2001. r41 Hans Jung Born 1944; Assistant, and subsequentlyAssistant Lecturer, at the Faculty of Law (Berlin); Rechtsanwalt(Frankfutt); lawyer-linguist at the Court of Justice; Legal Secretaryat the Court of Justice in the Chambersof PresidentKutscher and subsequentlyin the Chambersof the Germanjudge at the Court of Justice; Deputy Registrar of the Court of Justice; Registrar of the Court of First Instance since l0 October1989. r42r42 2. changes in the compositionof the court of First Instancein 2001 In 2001the compositionof the court of First Instancechanged as follows: On 20 September,Judge Andr6 Potocki,having completed his term of office, left the court of First Instance.He was replacedby Hubert Legal as Judge. r43 3. Order of precedence from 1 January to 19 September 2001 B. VESTERDORF, Presidentof the Court of First Instance P. LINDH, Presidentof Chamber J. AZIZI, Presidentof Chamber P. MENGOZZI, Presidentof Chamber A.W.H. MEIJ, Presidentof Chamber R. GARCIA-VALDECASAS Y FERNÄXDEZ, Judge K. LENAERTS, Judge V. TIILI, Judge A. POTOCKI, Judge R.M. MOURA RAMOS, Judge J.D. COOKE, Judge M. JAEGER, Judge J. PIRRUNG, Judge M. VILARAS, Judge N.J. FORWOOD, Judge H. JUNG, Registrar 145 from 20 Septemberto 31 December2001 B. VESTERDORF,President of the Courtof First Instance R.M. MOURA RAMOS, Presidenrof Chamber J.D. COOKE,President of Chamber M. JAEGER,President of Chamber M. VILARAS, Presidentof Chamber R. GARCIE-VELDECASASY FERNÄNNEZ,JUdgE K. LENAERTS,Judge V. TIILI, Judge P. LINDH, Judge J. AZIZI, Judge J. PIRRUNG,Judge P. MENGOZZI, Judge A.W.H. MEIJ, Judge N.J. FORWOOD,Judge, H. LEGAL, Judge H. JUNG,Registrar r46 4. Former Members of the Court of First Instance Da CRUZVILAQA Jos6Luis (1989-1995),President from 1989to 1995 SAGGIOAntonio (1989-1998), President from 1995to 1998 BARRINGTONDonal Patrick Michael (1989-1996) EDWARD DavidAlexander Ogilvy (1.989-t992) KIRSCHNERHeinrich (1989-1997) YERARIS Christos(1989-1992) SCHINTGENRomain Alphonse (1989-1996) BRIET CornelisPaulus (1989-1998) BIANCARELLI Jacques(1989-1995) KALOGEROPOULOSAndreas (1992-1998) BELLAMY ChristopherWilliam (1992-1999) POTOCKIAndr6 (1995-2A01) - Presidents Da CRUZVILAQA Jos6Luis (1989-1995) SAGGIOAntonio (1995-1998) r47 Chapter III Meetingsand visits A - Official visits and functions at the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instancein 2001 18 January HE RaffaeleCampanella, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof Italy to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 25 January HE Theofilos V. Theofilou, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, Permanent Delegateof the Republicof Cyprusin Brussels 29 January Ms Nicole Fontaine, Presidentof the European Parliament 31 January HE Ricardo Zalacain Jorge, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof Spain to the GrandDuchy of Luxembourg 7 February Ms Kathalijne Maria Buitenweg,rapporteur to the EuropeanParliament for the 2001 budget l2 to 14 February Delegationfrom theCourt of Justiceof the Economic and Monetary Community of Central Africa (cEMAC) 15 February The Right Rev, AndrewMclellan, Moderatorof the Churchof Scotland 22 February Delegationfrom the Associationof Councilsof State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EuropeanUnion, Mr P. Hallberg,President of the SupremeAdrninistrative Court of Finland,Mr H.D. TjeenkWillink, Vice-Presidentof theCouncil of State of the Netherlands,and Mr Y. Kreins,Member of the Councilof Stateof Belgium 8 March HE Petar Stoyanov, Presidentof the Republic of Bulgaria 151 9 March Final of the EuropeanLaw Moot Court Competition 14 March Mr Michael Charles Wood, Legal Adviser at the Foreign andForeign Commonwealthand Office, Commonwealth Office,United KingdomKingdomUnited 15 March Delegationfrom the SupremeCourt of the Czech RepublicRepublic 19 March HE RaffaeleCampanella, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaryand of Plenipotentiary ofItaly Italyto tothe theGrand DuchyGrand Duchyofof LuxembourgLuxembourg 28 March HE Horst Pakowski,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof Germanyto the Grand Duchy of LuxembourgLuxembourg 10 April Mr GeraldJ. Loftus, Charg6d'Affaires ad interim at the Embassyof the United Statesof America in the GrandDuchy of Luxembourgand Mr RobertFaucher, First Secretaryin the Mission of the United Statesof America to the EuropeanUnion in Brussels 3 May Mr Willi Rothley and Mr Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Membersof Members ofthe Europeanthe ParliamentParliament European 10 May Mr Arturo GarciaTw6n, AbogadoGeneral del Estado (PrincipalLaw Offtcer, Spain) 23 May Mr Kurt Biedenkopf,Prime Minister of the Innd of SaxonySaxony 29 May Mr Clay Constantinou,former Ambassadorof the United Statesof America to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and Dean of Seton Hall School of Diplomacy& InternationalRelations 30 May Delegation from the ConsultativeCouncil of the BalearicIslands 152 31 May Mr Yueh-shengWeng, Presidentof the Judicial Yuan and Chairperson of the Council of Grand Justices (Taiwan) 18 and 19June Judges'Forum 25 June Mr Wolfgang Thierse, President of the German Bundestag 25 June HE Pierre Vimont, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PermanentRepresentative of France to the EuropeanUnion in Brussels 26 June Mr Helmut Schröer,Mayor of Trier 27 June Delegationfrom constitutionaland supremecourts in Latin America 27 lune HE Tudorel Postolache,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Romania to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 2 and 3 July Delegation from the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia 10July Mr Rocco Antonio Cangelosi,Director General for EuropeanIntegration in the GeneralSecret ariat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Italy, accompaniedby HE RaffaeleCampanella, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Italy to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg 11July HE Constantinos Stefanopoulos, President of the Hellenic Republic 16July HE I. Wo Byczewski,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Head of the Mission of the Republic of Poland to the EuropeanUnion 153 17 September Mr JosefPtihringer, Prime Minister of Upper Austria 18 September Mr Michel Petite, Director General of the l*gal Serviceof the EuropeanCommission 24 and,25September Delegationof Danishjudges 1 October Delegationfrom the EuropeanCourt of HumanRights in Strasbourg 3 October HE MasahiroAndo, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof Japan to the Grand Duchy of LuxembourgLuxembourg 4 October Delegationfrom the SupremeCourt of Estonia 8 and 9 October Delegationfrom the NetherlandsAdministrative Court for forTrade andTrade IndustryIndustryand 18 October Delegationfrom the SocialInsurance Division of the SwissFederal Court 13 November Delegationof ScottishLaw Officers: Mr Colin Boyd QC, Lord Advocate; Dr Lynda Clark QC MP, AdvocateGeneral for Scotland;and Mr Neil Davidson QC, Solicitor Generalfor Scotland 1.5November HELazar Comanescu,Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary,Head of the Mission of Romaniato the EuropeanCommunities 15 November Ms Loyolade Palacio,Vice-President of the European Commission 15 November Dr Hans-Georg Landfermann, President of the GermanFederal GermanPatent Federal CourtCourt Patent 19 and 20 November JudicialStudy Visit 154 26 November HE Dante Martinelli, AmbassadorExtraordinary and Plenipotentiaryof the SwissConfederation in Brussels 27 November Delegationfrom the First Public-Law Division of the SwissFederal Court 29 November Delegation from the SupremeCourt of Bul gaüa 10 and 11 December Delegationfrom the Council of Stateof the Hellenic Republic 155 B - Study visits to the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancein 2001" (Numberof visitors) Diplomats, l-ll-l Community law parliamentarians, Students, Members of lecturers, ,,teachers political groups, trainees, professional national civil EC-EP associations servanß l'*^'l 42 368 38 f* 5252 l3 LT4LT4 77 l5 208 t47 100 312 t297t297 259 40 22755 227 EL 58 44 108 L7AL7A EE 2424 131 15 611 60 841 FF 83 252252 38 t32 638 6363 na6 IRL 55 133 138 II 5252 38 213213 303 LL 22 29 60 9L NL 88 34 11 2525 78 AA L6L6 5252 T3T3 214 295 PP 88 l8 99 35 F'IN 88 66 77 34 68 183 SS 89 68 T9T9 176 UKUK 45 3232 55 2222 792 86 982 Third countries 69 222222 153 795 1313 12521252 Mixed groups -;l-;l 7l 1003 1616 I ;"Fal *l TT -r7-r7*l *l "'l "1 cont. The numberThe ofnumber judgesof ofjudges ofthe Memberthe StätesMemberwho Stätes participatedwho inparticipated inthe Judges'the ForumJudges' andForum judicialand judicialstudy visitvisitstudy organisedby the Coun of Iustice is includedunder this heading.In 2001 the figures were as follows: Belgium:9; Denmark:7; Germany:21; Greece:8; spain: 24; France:24; Ireland:S;ltaly:22;Luxembourg: 2; Netherlands:8; Austria: 8; Portugal:8; Finland: 8; Sweden:8; United Kingdom: 24. 2 Other than thoseaccompanying student groups. r57 Study visitsStudy tovisits tothe Courtthe Courtof ofJustice andJustice theand Courtthe Courtof ofFirst FirstInstanceInstance in 2001. (Numberof groups) Diplomats, lawyers, legal Community law parliamentrrians, Students, Members of National lecturers, teachers groups, EC- professional GhenGhen TOTAL | advisers, political trainees, judiciary 22 trairpes national civil EP associations seryants BB 66 33 11 1313 22 25 DKDK 22 11 II 44 11 11 10 DD 66 88 22 l0 4242 99 II 78 EL 66 11 55 t2t2 EE 22 88 11 2l 22 34 FF 88 11 11 88 2222 55 55 IRL 22 44 66 II 33 22 66 1111 LL 22 22 II 55 NL 22 11 II 11 55 AA 33 II 11 88 T3T3 PP 22 II II 44 FIN 22 44 II II 55 1.31.3 SS 66 44 11 11 UKUK 44 II 11 33 23 22 34 Third countries 66 t0 1313 30 11 60 Mixed groups 11 28 11 30 1 TOTAL 6262 55 66 40 212212 29 22 _e_e This headingincludes , inter alia, the ludges' Forum andjudicial studyvisit. 2 Other than thoseaccompanying student groups. 158 C - Formal sitting in 2001 19 September Formal sitting on the occasion of the partial renewal of the membershipof the Court of First Instance,the departurefrom office of Mr Andr6 Potocki, Judge at the Court of First Instance, and the entry into office of Mr Hubert Legal as Judgeat the Court of First Instance 159 D - Visits and participation in official functionsin 200L 15 January Visit of a delegationfrom the Court of Justice, including the President, to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg 25 January Attendance of a delegation from the Court of Justice at the formal sitting of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg 1 and 2 February Official visit of a delegationfrom the Court of Justice, including the President, to the German FederalConstitutional Court in Karlsruhe 19 February Meeting of the Presidentof the Court of Justice with Mr Romano Prodi, President of the EuropeanCommission, in Brussels 7 and 8 May At the invitation of His Majesty the King of Spain and His Royal Highness the Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg, participation of the Presidentof the Court of Justicein the functions on the occasionof the Statevisit to Spainof his Royal Highness the Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg 28 May Participationof a delegationfrom the Court of Justice at the General Assembly of the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EuropeanUnion in Helsinki 10 and 12 June Participation of the Presidentof the Court of 'European Justice at the Law Conference' organised by the Swedish Parliament and Governmentin Stockholm from 13 to 15 Seprember Participationof a delegationfrom the Court of Justice, including the President, at the lst EuropeanLawyers' Conferencein Nuremberg 161 27 and 28 September Participationof a delegationfrom the Court of Justiceat the symposiumfor Europeanjudges in the field of trademarks at the seatof the Office for Harmonisationin the InternalMarket (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM) in Alicante 28 September Attendanceof a delegationfrom the Court of Justice, including the President, at the celebrationof the 50th anniversaryof the German Federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe 1 October Attendanceof a delegationfrom the Court of Justiceat the ceremonyfor the openingof the judicial year in London 12 and13 October Participationof the Presidentof the Court of Justiceat a symposiumon the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities, celebrating the 10th anniversaryof the Maison de Rh6nanie- Palatinat(German cultural centre in Burgundy), and at the inauguralsession of the first Eastern European course of the Paris Institute of PoliticalStudies in Dijon 25 October Participationof the Presidentof the Court of '15 Justicein a paneldiscussion on years of case-lawof the Court of Justiceof the European Communities', ?ta symposiumorganised by the Spanish Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justiceon the occasion.ofthe 15thanniversary of the StateLegal Servicefor casesbefore the Court of Justiceof the EuropeanCommunities, in Madrid 16 November Participationof the Presidentof the Court of Justiceat the'Walter-Hallstein-Symposium',otr the occasionof the 100th anniversaryof the birth of Walter Hallstein, organisedby the WalterHallstein-Institut of HumboldtUniversity Berlin andJohann Wolfgang Goethe University in Frankfurt r62r62 Chapter IV Tablesand statistics A - Proceedingsof the Court of Justice 1. Synopsisof the judgments deliveredby the Court of Justice in 2001 167 Agriculturg.. ..,. .. .,.. .. r67 Approximationoflaws., .... ,.... 173 CitizenshipoftheUnion .. .. ., t77 Commgrcialpolicy . . . i . ., . . ., ...... 178 Communityownresources .. ., 180 Companylaw ,. .. ..,...,,.. 180 Competition,, .,,. ,...,,r..., t82 ECSC . . 184 Environment and consumers 185 Externalrelations ...... ,. 189 Fisheriespolicy ...... ! L9l Freemovementofcapital .,.. . r. t92 Frgemovementofgoods ...... ,.. r92 Freedomofestablishment ...... ! 196 Freedomof movementfor persons ., . . . ., 196 Freedomto provide services . . . . ., 201 Industrialpolicy...... 205 Intellectualproperty .,...... 206 Law governing the Institutions . . . 206 Principlesof communitylaw ., . . ., 208 Procedure . r 208208 Socialpolicy .,.. .,.. .. 208208 Social securityfor migrant workers . ., . . . . . 2r3 Staffregulationsof officials ...... 214 Stateaid .,.... ,.,... ,. 216 Taxation,.,, ...... , 218 Transport ...... ,,. 225 2. Synopsisof the other decisionsof the Court of Justicewhich appearedin the tProceedingstin 200I . . ., ., . . e . . . 229 3. Statisticsof judicial activity of the Court of Justice . . . . . 237 165 L. Synopsisof the judgments delivered by the Court of Justice in 2001 CaselDatelPutieslsubiect-rurcr AGRICULTURE c-247t98t98 c-247 I 1 January2001 Hellenic Republic v EAGGF Clearance of Commissionof the accounts- 1994 financial EuropeanCommunities year c-403t98 11January 2001 Azienda Agricola Monte Agriculture Farmer Arcosu Srl v Regione practising farming as his Autonoma della main occupation Sardegna,Organismo Concept - Private limited Comprensorialen. 24 company della Sardegna,Ente Regionaleper I'AssistervaTecnica in Agricola (ERSAT) r67 Subject-nratterSubject-nratter c-333/99 1 February2A0l Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations FrenchRepublic Communitysystem for the conservation and management of fishery resources Control of fishingand related activities Inspection of fishing vesselsand monitoringof landings (Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 170/83and Article 1(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87)- Temporary prohibition of fishing activities(Article 11(2) of RegulationNo 2241187)- Penal or administrative action against those responsiblefor infringing the Community rules on conservation and monitoring(Article 5(2) of RegulationNo 170/83and Article I(2) of Regulation No 2241187\ c-278t98 6 March2001 Kingdomof the EAGGF Clearanceof Netherlandsv accounts 1994 Commissionof the Cereals,beef and veal EuropeanCommunities c-316t99 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FederalRepublic of Directive 96143lEC GermanyGermany Failureto transposewithin the prescribedperiod c-176/00 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations HellenicRepublic Failure to transpose Directives 96l24lEC and 96t25tEC 168 Subject-ma$er c-41t99P 31 May 2001 Sadam Zuccherifici, Appeal Sugar divisionedella SECI - Regulation (EC) SocietäEsercizi No 2613197- Aid to beet Commerciali Industriali sugar producers SpA, Sadam Abolition Marketing CastiglioneseSpA, year 2A01/02- Action for Sadam Abruzzo SpA, annulment Natural or Zuccheriricio del Molise legal persons SpA, SocietäFondiaria Inadmissible Industriale Romagnola SpA (SFIR) v Council of the European Union c-rc}/99 5 July2001 Italian Republic v Commonagricultural policy Council of the European Agrimonetary system Union, Commissionof for the euro - Transitional the European measures for the Communities introduction of the euro c-189/01 12July 2001 H. Jippes, Agriculture Control of Afdeling Groningenvan foot-and-mouth disease de Nederlandse Prohibition of vaccination Vereniging tot Principle of Beschermingvan Dieren, proportionality Taking Afdeling Assen en animal welfare into account omstrekenvan de NederlandseVereniging tot Beschermingvan Dieren v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij c-36st99 12July 2001 PortugueseRepublic v Agriculture Animal Commissionof the health Emergency EuropeanCommunities measuresto combat bovine spongiforrn encephalopathy - Mad cow disease c-374t99 13 September2001 Kingdom of Spain v EAGGF Clearance of Commissionof the accounts- 1995 financial EuropeanCommunities year Aid for consumptionof olive oil - Premiums for sheep and goats 169 Subject-matter c-375/99 13 September2A0l Kingdomof Spainv EAGGF Clearanceof Commissionof the accounts Expenditure EuropeanCommunities for for1996 1996and and 19971997 Public storage of bovine meat c-263t98 20 September2001 Kingdomof Belgiumv EAGGF Clearanceof Commissionof the accounts 1994 EuropeanCommunities Cereals,beef and veal c442/99P 27 September2001 CordisObst und Gemüse Appeal Common GroßhandelGmbH v organisationof the market Commissionof the Bananas Imports EuropeanCommunities, fiom ACP Statesand third FrenchRepublic countries Requestfor import licences Transitional measures Regulation (EEC) No 404193 Principle of equaltreatment c403t99 4 October2001 ItalianRepublic v Commonagricultural policy Commissionof the Agrimonetary system EuropeanCommunities for the euro- Transitional measures for the introductionof the euro Cases 9 October2001 Ernst-OttoFlemmer, Non-contractualliability - c-80/99, RenateChristoffel v Milk producers Non- C-81199and Councilof the European marketing undertaking c-82/99 Union, Commissionof Exclusionfrom milk quota the European scheme Compensation Communities - Substitution- Flat-rate compensationby contract Marike Leitensdorferv Regulation(EEC) No Bundesanstaltfür 2187/93 Relevant Landwirtschaftund jurisdiction Applicable Ernährung law c457t99 11ocrober 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations HellenicRepublic Directive 95l69lEC Animal nutrition Non- implementation 170 Subject-niatter c-228t99 8 November 2001 Silos e Mangimi Martini Agriculture Common SpA v Ministero delle organisationof the markets Finanze Export refunds W Wi i t th hd dr ra aw wa aI I -- Interpretation and validity of Regulations (EC) No 1521,195and No 1576195 - Failure to statereasons c-277t98 13November 2001 French Republic v EAGGF Clearance of Commissionof the accounts 1994 EuropeanCommunities Supplementarylevy on milk - Disputes between those liable to the levy and the competent national authorities Proceedings before national courts Negative corrections applied to Member States for supplementary levies not yet recovered c-1,47199 22 November2A0I Italian Republic v EAGGF Clearance of Commissionof the accounts Inelig ible European Communities durum wheat - Quantities missing from the stockpile - Withdrawal of approval of undertakings packaging olive oil Inadequate managementand checks of premiums for sheep and goats c-r46t99 27 November2001 Italian Republic v EAGGF Clearance of Commissionof the accounts Tomatoes EuropeanCommunities Minimum price for producers c-148/00 6 December2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State European Comrnunitiesv to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Failure to transpose Directive 98/51/EC c- 166/00166/00c- 6 December2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Hellenic Republic Failure to transpose D irectives 97l4L lEC , 98/51/ECand 98/67lEC 17I Subject-matter c-373/99 6 December2001 HellenicRepublic v EAGGF Clearanceof Commissionof the accounts- 1995financial EuropeanCommunities year Fruit and vegetables- Arablecrops c-269/99 6 December2001 Carl KühneGmbH & Agricultural products and Co.KG, foodstuffs- Geographical Rich. Hengstenberg indicationsand designations GmbH& Co., of origin Simplified Ernst Nowka GmbH & registration procedure Co. KG v Jütro Protection of the 'Spreewälder KonservenfabrikGmbH designation & Co. KG Gurken' c-1/00 13 December2001 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Refusalto end the ban on British beefand veal c-93/00 13December 2001 EuropeanParliament v Regulation (EC) Councilof the European No 2772/1999 Beef Union labelling system Competenceof the Council c-131/00 13December 2001 Lisa Nilssonv Commonagricultural policy Länsstyrelseni Regulation (EEC) No Norrbottenslän 3508192 Regulation (EEC) No 3887t92 Integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes Detailedrules for application- Register of animalsnot kept up to dateby farmer- Penalties c-3 17c-3t99t99 17 13 December2001 KloosterboerRotterdam Referencefor a preliminary BV v Ministervan ruling - Additional duties Landbouw,Natuurbeheer on importation- Validity en Visserij of Article 3 of Regulation (EC)No 1484/95 172 APPROXIMATIONOF LAWS c-370/99 11January 2A0I Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Ireland Directive 96l9lEC Failure to implementwithin the prescribedperiod c-151/00 18January 200I Commission of the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Directive 97/66/EC Processingof personal data and protection of privacy in the telecommunications sector- Non-transposition c-2r9t99 14February 2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Failure not contested Directive95116/EC c-278t99 8 March2001 Georgiusvan der Burg Technical standards and regulations Non-approved transmitting equipment- Advertising c-100/00 5 April 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Undisputed failure Directive 73l23|EEC Electric water heaters Conditions not prescribed by the directive c-306t98 3 May 2001 The Queenv Minister of Directive gll4l4lBBc Agriculture, Fisheries PIant protection products and Food, Secretaryof Authorisation for State for the placing on the market Environment, ex parte: Assessment of an Monsantoplc applicationfor authorisation - Transitionalperiod 173 Subject-matter c-28/99 3 May 2001 Jean Verdonck, Ronald Directive 89/592/EEC Everaert, Iidith de Baedts National rules on insider dealing Power of Member States to adopt more stringentprovisions Definition of national provisionsapplied generally c-203/99 10May 2001 Henning Veedfald v Approximationof laws Arhus Amtskommune Directive 85l374lEEC Liability for defective products Exemption fromliability - Conditions c-258t99 10 May10 20AL20ALMay BASF AG v Bureauvoor Regulation (EC) No de IndustriöleEigendom 1610/96- Plantprotection (BIE) products- Supplementary protectioncertificate c-169/99 13 September2001 HansSchwarzkopf Article 6(I )(d), last GmbH& Co. KG v sentence, of Directive Zentnle arZentnle arBekämpfungBekämpfung 76l768lEEC, äs amended unlauterenWettbewerbs by Directive93l35lEEC - eV Prescribed labelling impossible for practical reasons- Justificationfor putting abbreviatedforms of compulsorywarnings on the containers and packaging of cosmetic products Information providedin nine languages in the interestsof greater flexibility in the marketing of cosmeticproducts 174 Subject-niatrcr c-517t99 4 October2001 Merz & Krell GmbH & Trade marks Co. Approximation of laws Arricle 3(1Xd) of First Directive 89lI04|EEC Grounds for refusal or invalidity Trade marks which consistexclusively of signs or indicationswhich have becomecustomary in the current language or in the bona fide and establishedpractices of the trade - Need for signs or indications to have become customary to designatethe goodsor servicesin respect of which registrationof the mark is sought - No need for the signs or indications to be directly descriptiveof the properties or characteristicsof the goods or services in respect of which registration of the mark is sought c-450/00 4 October2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Grand Duchy of Failure to transpose Luxembourg Directive 95/46lEC 175 Subject-matter c-377/98 9 October2001 Kingdomof the Annulment - Directive Netherlandsv European 98l44lEC Legal Parliament,Council of protection of the EuropeanUnion biotechnologicalinventions Legal basis Article l00a of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 95 EC), Article 235 of the Ec Treaty (now Article 308EC) or Articles 130 and 130f of the EC Treaty (now Articles 157 EC and 163 EC) Subsidiarity Legal certainty- Obligationsof Member States under international law Fundamental rights Humandignity - Principle of collegiality for draft legislation of the Commission c-rL2t99 25 October2001 ToshibaEurope GmbH v Comparativeadvertising - Katun GermanyKatun GmbHGmbH Germany Marketing of spare parts and consumableitems References made by a supplier of non-original spareparts and consumable items to the product numbers specific to the original spare parts and consumable items Directive84l450lEEC and Directive97lSSlEC 176 Subject-matter Cases 20 November2001 Ztna Davidoff SA v A & Trade marks Directive c-414t99, G Imports Ltd 89lL04lEEC- Article 7(1) C-415199and - Exhaustion of the rights c-4r6/99 Levi Strauss& Co., Levi conferred by a trade mark Strauss(UK) Ltd v Tesco Goods placed on the StoresLtd, Tesco plc market outside the EEA - Imported into the EEA - Levi Strauss& Co., Levi Consent of the trade mark Strauss(UK) Ltd v proprietor Whether CostcoWholesale UK consent required to be Lrd expressor implied - Law governing the contract - Presumptionof consent- Non-applicability CITIZENSHIPOF THE UNION - c-r92t99 20 February2001 The Queen v Secretaryof Citizenshipof the Union Statefor the Home Nationality of a Member Department,ex parte: State Declarations by Manjit Kaur the United Kingdom concerningthe definition of the term national - British OverseasCitizen 177 COMMERCIAL POLICY c-239t99 15February 15 zWLzWL FebruaryNachi EuropeGmbH v Common commercial HauptzollamtKrefeld policy Anti-dumping measures- Article 1(2)of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 Modification of the definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ball bearings with a greatest externaldiameter exceeding 30 mm originatingin Japan Reference for a preliminary ruling on whether that regulationis valid Failure by the plaintiff in the main proceedingsto bring an actionseeking annulment of the regulation Cases 3 May 2001 AjinomotoCo., Inc. Appeal Dumping C-76198P and The NutraSweet Normalvalue - Existence c-77/98 P Companyv Councilof of a patentin theexporter's the EuropeanUnion domesticmarket - Effect Commissionof the on the lawfulnessof the EuropeanCommunities regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty of an allegedlyillegal elementof the regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumpingduty c-1,rat97 22 November2001 Kingdom of the Arrangements for Netherlandsv Council of association of overseas the European Union countriesand territories- Importsof rice originating in the overseascountries andterritories - Safeguard measures Regulation (EC) No 304/97 - Action for annulment 178 Subject-matter c-30Lt97 22 November 2AAl Kingdom of the A Ar r ra na gn eg me em ne tn st s f fo rro Netherlandsv Council of association of overseas the European Union countries and territories - Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories- Safeguard measures Regulation (EC) No 1036197- Action for annulment c-451t98 22 November2001 AntilleanRice Mills NV A Ar r ra na gn eg me em ne tn ts s f fo rro v Council of the association of overseas EuropeanUnion countries and territories Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories- Safeguard measures Regulation (EC) No 304197- Action f fo ro r a na n un Iu mI em ne ttn Inadmissibility c-452/98 22 November2001 NederlandseAntillen v Arrangements for Council of the European association of overseas Union countries and territories - Imports of rice originating in the overseas countries and territories - Safeguard measures Regulation (EC) No 1036197- Action f fo ro r a na n un Iu mI em ne ttn Inadmissibility 179 COMMUNITYOWN RESOURCES c-253t99 27 September2001 BacardiGmbH v CommunityCustoms Code Hauptzollamt and implementing Bremerhaven regulation- Repaymentof import duties Favourabletariff treatment Post-clearance productionof certificateof authenticity Alteration of the tariff classification stated in the customs declaration Conceptof specialsituation COMPANY LAW c-237t99 1 FebruaryZ0{J.l Commissionof the Failure by a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Directive 93/37|EEC Public works contracts Concept of contracting authority c-97t00t00 c-97 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Failure to transpose Directive97152lEC Cases 10May 2001 Agorä Srl v Ente Public servicecontracts - C-223199and AutonomoFiera Definition of contracting c-260/99 Internazionaledi Milano authorities Body governedby public law ExcelsiorSnc di Pedrotti Bruna&C.vEnte AutonomoFiera lnternazionaledi Milano, CiftatSoc. coop. arl 180 Subject-matter c-439t00 2l June2001 Commissionof the Failure by Member Stateto European Communities v fulfil its obligations French Republic Directive 98l4lEC Failure t0 transpose within the prescribedperiod c-399t98 12July 2001 Ordinedegli Architetti Public works contracts delle Provincedi Milano Directive 93/37|EEC e Lodi, National legislationunder Piero De Amicis, which the holder of a ConsiglioNazionale degli building permit or approved Architetti, development plan may Leopoldo Freyrie v execute infrastructure Comunedi Milano works directly, by way of set-off against a contribution National legislation permitting the public authorities to negotiatedirectly with an individual the terms of administrative measures concerninghim c-19/00 18October 2001 SIAC Construction Ltd v Public works contracts County Council of the Award to the most County of Mayo economically advantageous tender - Award criteria Cases 27 November2AAI Impresa Lombardini SpA Directive 93/37IEEC C-285199and - Impresa Generaledi Public works contracts c-286t99 Costruzioniv ANAS - Award of contracts Ente Nazionaleper le Abnormally low tenders- Strade, Detailed rules for SocietäItaliana per explanation and rejection Condotted'Acqua SpA applied in a Member State Obligations of the Impresa Ing. Mantovani awarding authority under SpAvANAS-Ente Community law Nazionaleper le Strade, Ditta Paolo Bregoli 181 COMPETITION c-r63t99 29 March2001 PortugueseRepublic v Exclusiverights - Airport Commissionof the administration Landing EuropeanCommunities charges- Article 90(3)of the EC Treaty (now Article 86(3)EC) c49t98 P 17May 2001 InternationalExpress Appeal Decision CarriersConference rejecting complaint (IECC)v Commissionof Competition Postal the European services- Remail Communities c-4s0t98 17 May 2001 InternationalExpress Appeal Decisions CarriersConference rejecting complaints (IECC)v Commissionof Abuse of a dominant the European position- Postalservices Communities - Remail c-340t99 17May 2001 TNT TracoSpA v Poste Articles 86 and 90 of the ItalianeSpA, formerly EC Treaüy(now Articles 82 EntePoste Italiane, and EC and 86 EC) - Postal Others services National legislation making the supply of express mail services by undertakings other than the one responsiblefor operating theuniversal service subject to paymentof the postal duesnormally applicable to the universal service Allocationof the proceeds of those dues to the undertaking with the exclusiveright to operate theuniversal service T82T82 Case Subject-maner Cases 12July 2001 Commissionof the Appeal - Inoperative plea c-302t99P EuropeanCommunities, Challenge to the and French Republic v grounds of a judgment that c-308/99P T6lövision frangaiseI SA has no effect on the (TFl) operative part of the judgment Liability for costs c-453t99 20 September2001 CourageLtd v Bernard Article 85 of the EC Treaty Crehan (now Article 81 EC) Beer tie Leasing of BernardCrehan v publichouses - Restrictive CourageLtd and Others agreement Right to damagesof a party to the contract Cases 16October 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State C-396t99and European Communities v to fulfil its obligations c-397/99 Hellenic Republic Directives 90/388/EEC and 96l2lEC Market for telecommunications services Mobile and personalcommunications c-429t99 16October 2001 Commissionof the Telecommunications EuropeanCommunities v Directives90/388/EEC and PortugueseRepublic 96/19/EC Voice telephony Call-back services Portugal Telecom c-475/99 25 October2001 Firma Ambulanz Articles 85, 86 and 90 of Glöckner v Landkreis the EC Treaty (now Südwestpfalz Articles 81 EC , 82 EC and 86 EC) Transport of sick or injured personsby ambulance Special or exclusive rights Restriction of competition Public interest task Justification Effect on trade between Member States 183 Subject-matter c-22U99 29 November2001 GiuseppeConte v Architects' fees StefaniaRossi Summaryprocedure for the recovery of debts Opinionof the professional association Articles 5 and 85 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 10 EC and 81 EC) c-146100 6 December2001 Commissionof the Telecommunications EuropeanCommunities v Financing of a universal FrenchRepublic service Contribution from new marketentrants ECSC Cases 21 June2001 MocciaIrme SpA, Appeal- Aid to the steel c-280t99P, FerrieraLamifer SpA, industry Restructuring c-28t/99P FerrieraAcciaieria of the iron and steelsector and CasilinaSpA v c-282/99P Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities c-390/98 20 September2001 H.J. Banks& Co. Ltd v ECSC Treaty Licences The CoalAuthority, to extract raw coal Secretaryof Statefor Discrimination between Tradeand Industry producers Special charges State aid Article 4(b) and (c) of the Treaty Decision No 3632193/ECSC- Codeon aid to the coal industry- Direct effect- Respective powersof the Commission and the nationalcourts 184 Subject-matter c-276t99 25 October2001 Federal Republic of ECSC - Stateaid granted Germany v Commission to iron and steel of the European undertakings- Communities Application for the recovery of aid contrary to Community law - Obligationsof the Member States- Failure to fulfil obligations- Procedure initiated when the failure has exhaustedits effects EI{VIRONMENT AND COI{SUMERS c-266tAAc-266tAA8 March 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Grand Duchy of Directive 91l676lEEC Luxembourg c-266t99 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Quality of surface water intendedfor the abstraction of drinking water Directive 751440/EEC Conditions of drinking water abstraction in Brittany c-t47t}a 15March 2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Quality of bathing water - Inadequate implementation of Directive 761160/EEC c-r44t99 10May 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of the Directive 93113/EEC Netherlands Unfair terms in consumer contracts Incomplete transposition of the directive into national law 185 Subject-matter c-152t98 10May 2001 Commission of the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of the Directive 76l464lEEC Netherlands Water pollution- Failure to transpose c-159t99 17May 2001 Commission of the Failureby a MemberState European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Directive 79l409lEEC Conservationof wild birds - Admissibility c-230/00 14June 2001 Commission of the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of Belgium Failure to implement Directives 75/442/EEC, 76t464/EEC,80/68/EEC, 841360IEEC and 851337lEEC Pollution and nuisance- Waste- Dangeroussubstances Pollution of the aquatic environment Air pollution c-368/00 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdomof Sweden Qualityof bathingwater - Inadequateimplementation of Directive761 L60|EEC c-67/99 11 September2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Ireland Directive 92/43|EEC Conservation of natural habitats- Conservationof wild fauna and flora Article4(1) - List of sites - Site information c-7U99 11September 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Federal Republic of Directive 92143/EEC Germany Conservation of natural habitats- Conservationof wild fauna and flora Arricle4(1) - List of sites - Site information 186 Case Subject-matter c-270t99 11September 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Directive 92/43/EEC Conservation of natural habitats- Conservationof wild fauna and flora Article 4(1) - List of sites - Site information c-41,7t99 13September 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of Spain Directive 96/62/EC Ambient air quality assessment and management Failure to designate the competent authorities and bodies responsible for implementingthe directive c-354t99 18October 2001 Commissionof the Failure to fulfil obligations European Communities v Directive 86/6A9|EEC Ireland Incomplete implementation c-510/99 23 October2001 Xavier Tridon v Wild fauna and flora F6ddrationRhöne-Alpes Endangered species de protection de la nature Application in the (Frapna), sectionIsöre Community of the WashingtonConvention c-127/99 8 November2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Inadequate implementation of Directive 9ll676lEEC Protection of waters againstpollution causedby nitrates from agricultural sources c-427 tAAtAAc-427 13November 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations United Kingdom of Great Quality of bathing wate Britain and Northern Inadequatecompliance with Ireland Directive 76/160/EEC r87 Subject-ntaner Cases 22 November2001 CapeSnc v Idealservice Article 2(b) of Directive C-541199and Srl 93113/EEC- Meaningof c-s42t99 consumer Undertaking IdealserviceMN RE Sas concluding a standard v OMAI Srl contract with another undertaking to acquire merchandiseor services solelyfor the benefitof its employees c-376t00 1l December2041 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations ItalianRepublic Directives 75 | 439lEEC and 751442|EEC National reports on implementation - Failureto forwardto the Commission c-324t99 13 December2001 DaimlerChryslerAG v Environment- Waste Land Baden-Württemberg Regulation (EEC) No 259193 on shipmentsof waste Conditions justifying prohibitionsor restrictionson theexport of waste National legislation imposing the obligationto offer wasteto an approvedbody c-48Lt99 13 December}WL Georg Heininger and Consumer protection Helga Heininger v Doorstepselling Right BayerischeHypo- und of cancellation Vereinsbank AG Agreementto grant credit secured by charge on immovableproperty 188 EXTERNAL RELATIONS c-36t98 30 Januarv2001 Kingdom of Spain v Legal basis- Environment Council of the European Council decision Union approving the Convention on cooperation for the protection and sustainable use of the river Danube - Article 130s(1)and (2) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,Article I75(L) and (2) EC) - Concept of management of water resources c-33/99 20 March2001 HassanFahmi, M. Arricle 4l of rhe EsmorisCerdeiro-Pinedo EEc-Morocco Cooperation Amado v Bestuur van de Agreement-Article3of SocialeVerzekeringsbank Regulation (EEC) No 1408171 - Social security Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 16LZl68- Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC) Freedom of movement for persons Non- discrimination Recipients of an invalidity pension no longer residing in the competent Member State- Amendment of the legislationon study finance 189 Subject-mauer c-89t99 13September 2001 Schieving-Nijstad vof and Agreementestablishing the Others v Robert World Trade Organisation Groeneveld Article 50(6) of the TRIPs Agreement Interpretation Direct effect Application to proceedingspending at the time of entry into force in the State concerned Conditions regarding the time-limit for bringing substantiveproceedings Calculationof that time- limit c-63/99 27 SeptemberzWL The Queenv Secretaryof External relations Statefor the Home Association Agreement Department,ex parte: between the Communities WieslawGloszczuk and and Poland- Freedomof ElzbietaGloszczuk establishment Leave to enterobtained fraudulently c-235t99 27 September2001 The Queenv Secretaryof External relations Statefor the Home Association Agreement Department,ex parte: betweenthe Communities EleanoraIvanova and Bulgaria Freedom Kondova of establishment- Leave to enter fraudulently obtained- Obligationon a Member State to pay compensationfor damage caused to an individual invoking a right of establishment which is directly effectiveunder the AssociationAgreement c-257/99 27 September2001 The Queenv Secretaryof External relations Statefor the Home AssociationAgreement Department,ex parte: between the Communities JuliusBarkoci and and the CzechRepublic - MarcelMalik Freedomof establishment - Czechnationals wishing to establishthemselves in a Member State as self- employedworkers 190 Case Subject-matter c-2,68t99 20 November2001 Aldona Malgorzata Jany External relations and Others v Association agreements Staatssecretarisvan between the Communities Justitie and Poland and betweenthe Communitiesand the Czech Republic Freedom of establishment- Economic activities - Whether or not they include the activity of prostitution FISHERIESPOLICY c-120t99 25 October2001 Italian Republic v Commonagricultural policy Council of the European Fisheries Bluefin Union tuna Regulation (EC) No 4911999 Statement of reasons Total allowable catches (TACs) Allocation of TACs among Member States Principle of relative stability Determination of basic data Complex economic situation Discretion - International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas - Accession of the Community Impact on the allocation of TACs to Member States- Principle of non-discrimination 191 CasclDatclPanicslSubiect-man€r FREEMOVEMENT OF CAPITAL c464/98 1l January2001 Westdeutsche National rules prohibiting Landesbank Gir ozentrale the registration of v Friedrich Stefan mortgages in foreign currencies Breach of thar prohibition before Community law entered into force in Austria Interpretation of Article 73b of the EC Treaty(now Article 56 EC) - Whether Communitylaw canoperate to remedythe registration c-r78t99 14June 2001 Doris Salzmann Referencefor a preliminary ruling Registrationof realproperty transactions in the land register Administrativenot judicial proceeding Lack of jurisdictionof theCourt FREEMOVEMENT OF GOODS c-u99 11 January2001 Kofisa Italia Srl v Referencefor a preliminary Ministero delle Finanze, ruling- Iurisdictionof the Servizio della Court National Riscossionedei Tributi - legislation adopting ConcessioneProvincia di Communityprovisions Genova - San Paolo CommunityCustoms Code Riscossioni Genova SpA Appeal Mandatory natureof the two stagesof theappeal - Suspensionof implementationof a decision of the customs authorities r92r92 Subject-matter c-226/99 l1 January2001 SiplesSrl v Ministro Common CustomsCode - delle Finanze, Servizio Appeals Suspensionof della Riscossionedei implementation of a Tributi - Concessione decision of the customs Provincia di Genova- authorities San Paolo Riscossioni Genova SpA c-66t99 I February2001 D. Wandel GmbH v Community Customs Code HauptzollamtBremen and implementing regulation- Incurrenceof a customs debt on importation Relevant time - Conceptof removal from customs supervision of goods liable to import duty Production of certificates of origin Effect c-nat99 15 February2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Infringementof Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) National legislation concerning rubber materials and rubber articles entering into contact with foodstuffs, food products and beverages Mutual recognition No proper letter of formal notice Action inadmissible c-187t99 22 February2001 FazendaPüblica v Inward processing relief Fäbrica de Queijo Eru arrangements- Regulation PortuguesaLdo (EEC) No 1999185- Rate of yield of the processing operation - Authorisation issued by the competent customsauthority - Power of that authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield 193 Subject-matter c-405t98 8 March2001 KonsumentombudsmanneFreemovement of goods- n (KO) v Gourmet Articles 30 and 36 of the InternationalProducts EC Treaty (now, after AB (GIP) amendment,Articles 28 EC and 30 EC) - Freedomto provideservices - Articles 56 and59 of theEC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles46 EC and49 EC) Swedishlegislation on the advertisingof alcoholic beverages Selling arrangements Measure havingan effectequivalent to a quantitativerestriction Justification in the interestof the protectionof health c-20u99 5 April 2001 DeutscheNichimen Common Customs Tariff GmbH v Hauptzollamt Tariff headings Düsseldorf Classification in the CombinedNomenclature - Satellitetelevision receivers c-r23tw 5 April 2A0l Christina Bellamy v Freemovement of Boods--- English Shop Wholesale Measureshaving an effect SA equivalentto a quantitative restriction- Marketingof bread Advertising of foodstuffs c-190/00 3 May 2001 EdouardBalguerie and Regulation (EEC) No Others,Soci6t6 Balguerie 4142187 Conditions and Others under which certaingoods are eligibleon importfor a favourable tariff arrangementby reasonof their end-use Regulations (EEC) No L5I7/91,No 1431192and No 142l/93- Suspension of autonomousCommon CustomsTariff duties Dates 194 Subject-matter c"288t99 10May 2001 VauDe Sport GmbH & Common customstariff - Co. KG v Tariff headings Oberfinanzdirektion Classification in the Koblenz CombinedNomenclature - Child carrier c-463t98 10Mav 2001 CabletronSystems Ltd v Common customs tariff - The Revenue Tariff headings Tariff Commissioners classification of equipment used in local area networks Classification in the CombinedNomenclature - Validity of Regulations (EC) No 1638194 and No 1165t95 c-119t99 17Mav 2001 Hewlett PackardBV v Common Customs Tariff Directeur göndral des - Combined nomenclature douaneset droits - Classificationof a multi- indirects function machine combining the functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and computer scanner Principal function Validity of Regulation(EC) No 2184/97 c-479t99 7 June2001 CBA Computer Handels- Common Customs Tariff und BeteiligungsGmbH, Tariff headings formerly VOBIS Tariff classification of Microcomputer AG v computer sound cards Hauptzollamt Aachen Classification in the CombinedNomenclature - Validity of Regulations (EC) No LL53l97 and No 2086197 c-84/00 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Article 30 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 28 EC) Free movement of articles of preciousmetal - Rules on acceptable standards of fineness 195 Subject-matrcr c-30t99 21 June2001 Commissionof the Freemovement of goods- EuropeanCommunities v Precious metals Ireland Compulsoryhallmark c-398/98 25 October2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations- HellenicRepublic Article 30 of theEC Treaty (now, after amendment, Arricle 28 EC) Obligation to maintain minimum stocks of petroleumproducts FREEDOMOF ESTABLISHMENT c493t99 25 October2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FederalRepublic of Articles 52 and 59 of the Germany EC Treaty (now, after amendment,Articles 43 EC and 49 EC) National legislation on the contractingout of labourin theconstruction industry - Exclusionof undertakings not party to a collective agreementfor that industry and not having an establishment in the Member State in which servicesare to be provided - Proportionality FREEDOMOF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS c-r62t99 18January 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Freedomof movementfor workers Freedom of establishment Dentists - Residenceconditions 196 Subjecrmatter c-108/96 1 February2001 Dennis Mac Quen, Derek Interpretation of Article 5 Pouton,Carla Godts, of the EC Treaty (now YoussefAntoun v Article 10 EC) and of GrandvisionBelgium SA Articles 30, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 28 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) National legislation prohibiting opticians from carrying out certain optical examinations National legislation restricting the marketing of equipmentfor carrying out certain optical examinations which are reserved exclusively for ophthalmologists CasesC-52199 22 February2001 Office national des Council Regulation (EEC) andC-53199 pensions(ONP) v No 1408/7l, äs amended Gioconda Camarotto, by Regulation (EEC) GiuseppinaVignone No 1248/92 Social security Insurance relating to old age and death Calculation of benefits- Changesto the rules governing calculation of benefits c-2T5t99 8 March2001 Friedrich Jauchv Social security for migrant Pensionsvers icherungs- worker s Austrian anstaltder Arbeiter schemeof insuranceagainst the risk of reliance on care - Classificationof benefits and lawfulness of the residence condition from the point of view of Regulation (EEC) No AA8t7 | r97 Subject-maner Cases 8 March2001 MetallgesellschaftLtd Freedomof establishment C-397198and and Others, Hoechst AG, Free movement of c410/98 Hoechst (UK) Ltd v capital Advance Commissionersof Inland paymentof corporationtax Revenue, HM Attorney on profits distributedby a General subsidiary to its parent company Parent companyhaving its seatin anotherMember State Breachof Communitylaw - Action for restitutionor action for damages Interest c-68/99 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failureto f'ulfil obligations EuropeanCommunities v Freedom of FederalRepublic of establishment Freedom GermanyGermany to provide services Social security Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71- Fundingof the socialinsurance scheme for self-employedartists and journalists Contribution collectedfrom undertakings which market the work of artists and journalists, calculatedon the basis of the remunerationpaid to the authors Account takenof remunerationpaid to artists and journalists subject to the social security legislation of anotherMember State c444t98 15March 2001 R. J. de Laatv Bestuur Social securityfor migrant van het Landelijk workers Regulation instituutsociale (EEC) No r408t71 - verzekeringen Frontier worker Partially unemployed Meaning 198 Case Subject-matter c-85/99 15March 2001 Vincent Offermanns and Regulation (EEC) No Esther Offermanns 1408171- Definition of family benefits - National legislation providing for payment of advances on maintenancepayments due by a worker to his minor child Condition concerning the child's nationality c-347t98 3 May 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of Belgium Social security Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article I3(2)(t) - Legislation of a Member Stateproviding for socialsecurity contributions to be levied on occupational diseasebenefits payable to persons who do not reside in that State and are no longer subject to its social security scheme c-285t00 10May 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Failure to transpose Directive 89/48IEEC within the prescribed period Recognition of diplomas giving access to the professionof psychologist 199 Subject-matter c-389/99 10 May10 20AL20ALMay Sulo Rundgren Socialsecurity - Insurance contributions payable by pensionerswho settledin a Member State before the entry into force in that Stateof Regulations(EEC) No 1408171 and No 1612/68- Rightof the Stateof residenceto charge contributions on old-age and invaliditybenefits paid by anotherMember State - Effect of an agreement by virtue of which the Nordic countries reciprocally waive all reimbursementof sickness and maternitybenefits c-263t99 29 May 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations ItalianRepublic Freedomof establishment Freedom to provide services Activity of transportconsultant c43/99 31 May 2001 Ghislain Leclere, Alina Regulations (EEC) Deaconescuv Caisse No 140817 | and No nationale des prestations 1612/68 Luxembourg familiales maternity, childbirth and child-raisingallowances - Residence condition Rights of a person receivinga pensionbut not resident in the Member State responsiblefor the pension Family allowances and family benefits Concept of worker and social advantage 200200 Subject-matter c-2r2/99 26 June26 2AAl2AAl June Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Free movement of workers Principle of non- discrimination Former foreign-language assistants - Recognition of acquired rights c- I 18/00 28 June2001 Gervais Larsy v Institut Regulations (EEC) No national d'assurances ruA\nl and No 1248/92 socialespour travailleurs - Retirement pensions - indöpendants(Inasti) Anti-overlapping rules Unenforceability pursuant to a judgment of the Court of Justice- Limitation of effects- Seriousbreach of Community law c-368/98 12July 2001 Abdon Vanbraekeland Social security - Sickness Others v Alliance insurance Articles 22 nationaledes mutualitds and 36 of Regulation(EEC) chrdtiennes(ANMC) No 1408/71- Freedomto provide services- Article 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) Hospital treatmentcosts incurred in another Member State Refusal of authorisation subsequently declared unfounded FREEDOMTO PROVIDESERVICES c-448t99 18January 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations Grand Duchy of Directive 97/I3|EC Luxemb0urg 20r20r Subject-matter c-165/98 15March 2001 Andr6 Mazzoleni v Inter Freedom to provide SurveillanceAssistance services Temporary SARL deploymentof workersfor performanceof a contract Directive96171/EC Guaranteedminimum wage c-283t99 31 May 2001 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations- Free ItalianRepublic movementof workers Freedom of establishment Freedom to provide services- Privatesecurity activities Private security firms and private sworn security guards Nationalitycondition c-191t99 14June 2001 Kvaernerplc v Non-life insurance Staatssecretarisvan Directive 881357IEEC Financiön Definition of establishment andthe Statewhere the risk is situated c-207t00t00 c-207 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations ItalianRepublic Failure to implement Directive 97/36lEC amending Directive 89/552/EEC Coordination of certain provisionslaid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member Statesconcerning the pursuit of television broadcastingactivities 202202 Subiect-matter c-119/00 21 June2AAl Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Grand Duchy of Failure to implement Luxembourg Directive 97/36lEC amending Directive 89t552/EEC Coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcastingactivities c-297t00 3 July2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Grand Duchy of Directive 98/35/EC Luxembourg Training of seafarers Failure to implementwithin the prescribedperiod c-rs7t99 12July 2001 B.S.M. Geraets-Smitsv Freedom to provide Stichting Ziekenfonds services Articles 59 of VGZ the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,Article 49 EC) H.T.M. Peerboornsv and 60 of the EC Treaty Stichting CZ Groep (now Article 50 EC) - Zorgverzekeringen Sickness insurance System providing benefits in kind System of agreements Hospital treatmentcosts incurred in another Member State Prior authorisation Criteria - Justification c-2s4t00 I 1 October2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations Kingdom of the Failure to implement Netherlands Directive 95147lEC within the prescribed period Use of standards for the transmissionof television signals 203 Subject-matter Cases 25 October2001 FinalarteSociedade de Freedom to provide c49/98, ConstrugäoLd.l v services Temporary c-50/98, Urlaubs-und deploymentof workers for c-52/98, Lohnausgleichskasseder the purposesof performing c-53/98, Bauwirtschaft a contract - Paid leave c-54/98, andholiday pay c-68/98, Urlaubs-und c-69t98, Lohnausgleichskasseder C-70l98and Bauwirtschaftv Amilcar c-7u98 OliveiraRocha Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaftv Tudor StoneLtd Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaftv Tecnamb-Tecnologiado AmbienteLd.' Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaftv Turiprata ConstrugöesCivil Ld.: Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaftv Duarte dosSantos Sousa Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwinschaftv Santos& Kewitz ConstrugöesLd.: PortugaiaConstrugöes Ld.: v Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaft Engil Sociedadede ConstrugäoCivil SA v Urlaubs-und Lohnausgleichskasseder Bauwirtschaft 204204 Subject-matter c-^au99 29 November2001 Commission of the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Directive 78/687lEEC Maintenance of a second system of training leading to entry to the professionof dentist Maintenance of the possibility of dual registration in the register of doctors and in that of dentists for doctors mentioned in Article 19 of Directive 78/6861EEC c- 17100 29 November2001 FrangoisDe Costerv Referencefor a preliminary Collögue des bourgmestre ruling Definition of a et öchevinsde national court or tribunal Watermael-boitsfort Freedom to provide services Municipal tax on satellite dishes Restriction on the freedom to receive television programmesby satellite IhTDUSTRIALPOLICY c-460/00 25 October2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Hellenic Republic Directive 96/48lEC Inreroperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system c-372t00 13December 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Ireland Directive 96148lEC Interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system c-79taa 13December 2001 Telefönicade EspaflaSA Directive 97133/EC v Administraciön General Telecommunications del Estado Interconnectionof networks - Obligations imposed on network providers 205 INTELLECTUALPROPERTY c-383/99P 20 September2001 Procter& Gamble Appeal- Admissibility- Companyv Office for Communitytrade mark - Harmonisationin the Regulation(EC) No 40/94 InternalMarket (Trade Absolute ground for Marksand Designs) refusal to register Distinctive character Marks consisting exclusively of descriptive signs or indications BABY-DRY LAW GOVERNINGTHE INSTITUTIONS c-40/98 16January 2001 Commissionof the Arbitrationclause - Non- EuropeanCommunities v performanceof contract TecnologieVetroresina SpA (TVR) c41l98 16 January2001 Commissionof the Arbitrationclause - Non- EuropeanCommunities v performanceof contract TecnologieVetroresina SpA (TVR) c-3r5t99P 10 July 2001 Ismeri EuropaSrl v Appeal - MED Courtof Auditorsof the prograrnmes Special EuropeanCommunities Report No 1/96 of the Courtof Auditors- Right to a hearing- Namingof third parties Necessity andproportionality c-t72t970P 2 October2001 SIVU du pland'eau de la Arbitrationclause - Non- Vall6edu Lot, otherwise performanceof a contract knownas SIVU du pays Proceedingsto have a d'accueilde la Vallöedu judgment by default set Lot v Commissionof the aside EuropeanCommunities 206206 c-77t99t99 c-77 11 October2001 Commission of the Arbitration clause European Communities v Financial support for the Oder-Plan Architektur energy sector Thermie GmbH, NCC Deutsche Programme Non- Bau GmbH, Esbensen performance of a contract Consulting Engineers - Termination - Right to repaymentof an advance c-59t99 13November 2001 Commissionof the Arbitration clause EuropeanCommunities v Reimbursementof advance Manuel Pereira Roldäo & payments made under a Filhos Ld.:, contract terminated by the Instituto Superior Commission for non- Töcnico, performance King, Taudevin& Gregson(Holdings) Ltd c-353/99P 6 December2001 Council of the European Appeal Public right of Union v Heidi Hautala access to Council documents Council Decision 931731lEC Exceptions to access to documents- Protectionof the public interest concerning international relations- Partial access 247 PRINCIPLESOF COMMUNITY LAW c-184t99 20 September2001 Rudy RudyGrzelczyk Grzelczykv vCentreCentre Articles6, 8 and 8a of the public d'aide sociale EC Treaty (now, after d' Ottignies-Louvain-la- amendment, Articles 12 Neuve EC, 17EC and 18EC) - Council Directive 93/96|EEC Right of residencefor students Nationallegislation which guarantees a minimum subsistenceallowance only for nationals, persons covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612168and stateless persons and refugees- Foreignstudent who hasmet his own living expensesduring the first yearsof his studies PROCEDURE c-472t99 6 December2001 CleanCar Autoservice Article 234 EC - Costsof GmbHv StadtWien, the parties to the main RepublikÖsterreich proceedings Article 104(5) of the Rules of Procedureof the Court SOCIALPOLICY c-4r3t98 25 January2001 Directora-Geraldo European Social Fund Departamentopara os Certification of facts and Assuntosdo Fundo accounts Powers of SocialEuropeu (DAFSE) certification - Limits v FrotaAzul-Transportes e TurismoLd.' 208208 Subject-maner c-172t99 25 January2001 Oy LiikenneAb v Pekka Directive 77/187 lEEC Liskojärvi,Pentti Safeguardingof employees' Juntunen rights in the event of transfersof undertakings- Directive 92/SA|EEC Public service contracts Non-maritime public transportservices c-350/99 8 February2001 Wolfgang Lange v Georg Council Directive SchünemannGmbH 911533/EECof 14 October L99l on an employer's obligation to inform employeesof the conditions applicableto the contractor employmentrelationship - Length of normal daily or weekly work Rules on overtime Rules of evidence c-62t99 29 March2001 Betriebsratder bofrost* Referencefor a preliminary JosefH. Boquoi ruling- Article 11(1)and DeutschlandWest GmbH (2) of Directive 94/45/EC & Co. KG v Bofrost* - Information to be made JosefH. Boquoi available by undertakings DeutschlandWest GmbH on request - Information & Co. KG intended to establish the existence of a controlling undertaking within a Community-scalegroup of undertakings c-473/99 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Republic of Austria Directive 95ßAßC Protection of workers from risks relatedto exposureto biological agents at work Failure to implement within the prescribedperiod 209 Subject-mauer c-r73t99 26 June2001 The Queenv Secretaryof Social policy - Protection Statefor Tradeand of the health and safety of Industry,ox parte: workers Directive Broadcasting, 93/104/EC Entitlement Entertainment, to paid annual leave Cinematographicand Condition imposed by TheatreUnion (BECTU) national legislation Completion of a qualifying period of employment with the same employer c-38U99 26 June2001 SusannaBrunnhofer v Equal pay for men and Bankder österreichischen women Conditions of PostsparkasseAG application- Difference in pay Definition of the same work and work of equal value Classification, under a collective agreement,in the same job category Burden of proof Objective justification for unequal pay Effectiveness of a specific employee'swork c-133/00 4 October2001 J.R.Bowden, J.L. Organisation of working Chapman,J.J. Doyle v time Directive TuffnellsParcels Express 93/I04|EC - Article 1(3) Lrd - Scope - Road transport c-438/99 4 October ZCr0^I Maria Luisa limönez Protection of pregnant Melgarv Ayuntamiento women Directive de Los Barrios 92l85lEEC Article 10 - Direct effect and scope - Dismissal - Fixed-term contract of employment c-109/00 4 October2001 Tele DanmarkA/S v Equal treatment for men Handels-og and women - Article 5(1) Kontorfunktion e rernes of Directive 76/207/EEC Forbundi Danmark(HK) - Article l0 of Directive 92l85lEEC - Dismissalof a pregnant worker Fixed-term employment contract 2r0 Subje*-matter c-379/99 9 October2001 Pensionskassefür die Equal pay for men and Angestelltender Barmer women Occupational ErsatzkasseVVaG v pensions- Pension funds Hans Menauer entrustedwith carrying out the employer's obligation as regards payment of a supplementarypension Survivor's pension c-110i00 I 1 October2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Republic of Austria Directive97l59lEC c-l11/00 11Ocrober 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Republic of Austria Directive97 /65/EC c-44U99 18October 2001 Riksskatteverketv Directive 8A/987|EEC SoghraGharehveran Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer Scope of the exclusion relating to Sweden provided for in point G of SectionI of the Annex to the Directive Designationof the State as liable to pay guaranteed wage claims Effect on Directive 8A/987 c-49/A0 15 November2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Incompletetransposition of Directive 891391/EEC Safety and health of workers 2IT Subject-matter c424t99 27 November2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MernberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations Republicof Austria Directive 89lI05|EEC Positive list for the purposesof Article 6 of Directive891105 - Time- limit for examinationof an applicationfor inclusionof a medicinalproduct on the list Obligation to provide for a judicial remedy in the event of refusal c-366/99 29 November2001 JosephGriesmar v Social policy Equal Ministrede l'Economie, treatment for men and desFinances et de women- Applicabilityof I'Industrie,Ministre de la Arricle 119 0f the EC FonctionPublique, de la Treaty(Articles II7 to 120 R6formede I'Etat et de of theEC Treatyhave been la Döcentralisation replaced by Articles 136EC to 143EC) or Directive 7917lEEC French civil and military retirementpension scheme Service credit for childrenawarded to female civil servants Whether permissiblein the light of Article 6(3) of the Agreementon SocialPolicy or the provisions of Directive79/7|EEC 2r22r2 Subject-nratrcr c-206t00 13December 2001 Henri Mouflin v Recteur Referencefor a preliminary de l'acadömiede Reims ruling * Social policy Equal treafment for men a an nd d w wo om me enn Applicability of Article 119 of the EC Treaty (Articles LL7 ro LZA of the EC Treaty have been replaced by Articles 136 EC to 143 EC) or Directive79/7|EEC - Frenchcivil and military retirement pension scheme Entitlement to a retirement pension with immediate effect for women only SOCIAL SECTJRITYFOR MIGRANT WORKERS Cases I 1 October2001 Mervett Khalil, Issa Social security Article c-95t99, Chaaban,Hassan Osseili 51 of the EEC Treaty (later c-96t99, v Bundesanstaltfür Article 51 of the EC Treaty c-97t99, Arbeit and now, after amendment, C-98/99and Article 42 EC) - Article c-180/99 Mohamad Nasserv 2(L) of Regulation (EEC) Landeshauptstadt No 1408171 - Stateless Stuttgart persons- Refugees Meriem Addou v Land Nordrhein-Westfalen c-2r2t00 16October 2001 SalvatoreStallone v Social security for migrant Office national de workers Regulation I'emploi (ONEM) (EEC) No r408t71 - Unemployment benefit Condition of living together with the dependent members of the family 2r3 Subject-matter c-189/00 25 October2001 UrszulaRuhr v Regulation (EEC) No Bundesanstaltftir Arbeit 1408171- Nationals of non-Membercountries Members of a worker's family Rights acquired directly and rights derived through others Unemploymentbenefit STAFF REGULATIONSOF OFFICIALS c-389/98P 11 JanuaryZC[']^L Hans Gevaert v Appeals Officials Commission of the Request for review of European Communities classification in grade Action - Expiry of time- limits New fact Equal treatment c-4s9/98P 11January 2001 IsabelMartinez del Peral Appeal Officials Cagigalv Commissionof Application for review of the European classification in grade Communities Action - Expiry of time- limits New fact Equal treatment c-273/99P 6 March2001 BernardConnolly v Appeal Officials Commissionof the Disciplinary proceedings- EuropeanCommunities Suspension- Statementof reasons Alleged misconduct- Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations Equal treatment c-274/99P 6 March2001 BernardConnolly v Appeal Officials Commissionof the Disciplinary proceedings- EuropeanCommunities Articles t 1, l2 and 17 of the Staff Regulations Freedom of expression Duty of loyalty - Conduct reflecting on an official's position 214 Subject-matter Cases 31 May 2001 D, Kingdom of Swedenv Appeal Official c-122t99P Council of the European Household allowance and Union Married official c-r25/99P Registered partnership under Swedish law c-449t99P 2 October2001 EuropeanInvestment Appeal - Members of the Bank v Michel Hautem staff of the European Investment Bank Dismissal - Interpretation of the Staff Regulationsof the European Investment Bank Plea alleging mistakencharacterisation of the legal nature of the facts and an error in the statement of reasons Alleged infringementof the rules applicableto relations between the European Investment Bank and its staff c-270/99P 27 November2001 Z v EuropeanParliament Appeal Officials Disciplinary proceedings- Failure to comply with the time-limits laid down in Article 7 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations of üfficials of the European Communities c-340/00P 13December 2001 Commissionof the Appeal Officials EuropeanCommunities v Article 17, second Michael Cwik paragraph, of the StafT Regulations- Freedomof expression Limits Statementof reasons c-446/AAP 13December 2001 PascualJuan Cubero Appeal Officials Vermurie v Commission Promotions- Mobility of the European Communities 2r5 caselp*lp*i.rlsrrbiect-maner STATEAID c-99t98 15February 2001 Republicof Austriav Action for annulment Commissionof the Plan to grant State aid in EuropeanCommunities the field of power semiconductors Notification of the Commission - Content of the notification and of supplementary questions put by the Commission Nature and duration of the investigation Commission's right of objection Article 93(3) of the EC Treaty (now Article 88(3) EC) c-379t98 13March 2001 PreussenElektraAG v Electricity Renewable SchleswagAG sources of energy National legislation requiring electricity supply undertakings to purchase electricity at minimum prices and apportioning the resulting costs between those undertakings and upstream network operators State aid Compatibility with the free movement of goods c-r7t99 22 March2001 French Republic v State aid Rescue and Commission of the restructuring aid European Communities Procedure for the examination of State aid - Failure to order a Member State to disclose the requisite information 216 Subjecrmatter c-261/99 22 March 2001 Commissionof the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations- State French Republic aid incompatible with the common market Recovery No absolute impossibility of implementation c-2a4/97 3 May 2001 PortugueseRepublic v State aid Aid for Commissionof the producers of liqueur wines EuropeanCommunities and eaux-de-vie Aid granted by the French Republic in the context of an increase in internal taxation c-378/98 3 July2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of Belgium State aid - Article 93(2), secondsubparagraph, of the EC Treaty (now Article 8I (2 ) , s e c o n d subparagraph, EC) Obligation to recover aid granted under the Maribel bis and Maribel ter schemes Impossible to put into effect c-400i99 9 October2001 Italian Republic v Action for annulment Commissionof the State aid Aid to a EuropeanCommunities maritime transport undertaking Public servicecontract - Existing aid or new aid - Initiation of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC Obligation to suspend No need to adjudicate or inadmissibility c-143t99 8 November 2001 Adria-Wien Pipeline Tax on energy Rebate GmbH, granted only to Wietersdorfer& undertakingsmanufacturing PeggauerZementwerke goods- Stateaid GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Kärnten 217 Subject-matter c-53100 22 November2001 FerringSA v Agence State aid Tax benefit centraledes organismes granted to certain de s6curitösociale undertakings - Wholesale (ACOSS) distributors TAXATION c-76/99 1l January2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Sixth VAT Directive Article l3(AXl)(b) Closely related activities - Concept c- rc- rr 3t993t99 r 18January 2001 Herta Schmid v Directive 69l335|EEC Finanzlandesdirektionfür Indirect taxes on the raising Wien, Niederösterreich of capital - Minimum tax und Burgenland on capital companies c-83/99 18January 2001 Commission of the Failure of a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of Spain Article 12(3Xa)of the Sixth VAT Directive Application of a reduced rate to motorway tolls c- rc- 50/9950/99r 18January 2001 Svenskastaten v Tax provisions Stockholm Lindöpark AB Harmonisation of laws Turnover taxes- Common Stockholm Lindöpark AB system of value added tax v Svenskastaten Sixth Directive Exemptions Letting of immovable property Practice of sport or physical education c-429t97 25 lanuary 200I Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic VAT Eighth Directive - Refund of VAT paid in another Member State Sixth Directive - Place of supply - Servlces relating to the collection, sorting, transport and disposal of waste 2r8 Subject-nratter c-393t98 22 February2001 Ministdrio Priblico, Internal taxation- Special Antönio Gomes Valente tax on motor vehicles v FazendaPüblica Second-handvehicles c-408/98 22 February2001 Abbey National plc v VAT - Articles 5(8) and Commissionersof 17(2)(a) and (5) of the Customs& Excise Sixth VAT Directive Transfer of a totality of assets Deduction of input tax on services used by the transferor for the purposes of the transfer - Goods and services used for the purposes of the taxable person's taxable transactions c-?4at99 8 March2001 Försäkringsaktiebolaget Sixth VAT Directive Skandia(publ) Exemptions Insurance and reinsurancetransactions c-415/98 8 March2001 Lazlo Bakcsi v VAT - Articles 2(l), 5(6) Finanzamt and 11.4(1)(a)of rhe Sixrh Fürstenfeldbruck VAT Directive Mixed- use goods - Incorporation into the private or business assetsof a taxable person - Sale of a businessasset Second-hand item purchased from a private individual c-276t98 8 March2001 Commissionof the Failure of Member Stateto EuropeanCommunities v fulfil its obligations PofiugueseRepublic Sixth VAT Directive Articles 12 and 28(2) Reduced rate c-265/99 15March 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil obligations French Republic Article 95 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 90 EC) - Tax on motor vehicies 219 Subject-mauer c-108/00 15March 2001 Syndicat des producteurs Tax provisions ind6pendants(SPI) v Harmonisation of laws Ministöre de I'Economie, Turnover taxes- Common des Finances et de system of value added tax l'Industrie - Secondindent of Article 9(2)(e) of the Sixth VAT Directive - Determination of relevant place for tax purposes Advertising services Inclusion of services provided through the intermediary of a third party c404t99 29 March2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Sixth VAT Directive Taxable amount Exclusion Service charges c-325t99 5 April z0f.t.l G. van de Waterv Tax provisions staatssecretarisvan Harmonisation of laws Financiön Excise duties - Directive 92/L2IEEC Chargeability of duty Releasefor consumptionof products subject to excise duty Notion Mere holding of a product subject to excise duty c48U98 3 May 2001 Commission of the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Sixth VAT Directive Articles l2(3Xa) and Z8(2)(a) - Reduced rate 220220 Case Subject-matter c-34/99 15Mav 2A0l Commissionersof Value added tax Sixth Customs& Excisev Directive 77l388lEEC PrimbackLtd Taxable amount Retail credit sales of goods Credit granted by a person other than the seller and at no cost to the customer - Payment by finance company to the seller of less than the price of the goods Cases 17May 2001 FinanzamtBurgdorf v Sixth VAT Directive C-322/99and Hans-GeorgFischer Articles5(6) and 114(1Xb) c-323t99 Allocation of business FinanzamtDüsseldorf- goods for private purposes Mettmann v Klaus - Taxation if the goods or Brandenstein the componentparts thereof gave rise to entitlement to deduct input VAT Meaning of component parts of the goods allocated c-86/99 29 May 2001 Freemansplc v Sixth VAT Directive Commissionersof Taxable amount Customs& Excise Discount accounted for at the time of the supply Price reduction after the supply takes place c-345t99 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Article L7(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive Deductibility of tax on the acquisitionof vehiclesused to carry out taxable transactions Limitation to vehiclesused exclusively for driving instruction 22r22r Subject-matter 14June 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations FrenchRepublic Article L7(2) and(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive Reintroduction,after the date of entry into force of the Directive, of a total abolition of the right to deduct VAT charged on diesel used as fuel for vehiclesand machineson the purchaseof which no VAT is deductible c-206t99 21 June2001 SONAE - Tecnologia de Raising of capital Informagäo SA v Directive 69l335lEEC DirecAäo-Geraldos Dutiespaid by way of fees Registose Notariado or dues- Chargefor entry in the commercialregister c-380/99 3 July 2001 BertelsmannAG v Sixth VAT Directive Finanzamt Wiedenbrück Article I1A(lXa) Taxable amount Delivery costs of bonuses in kind c-262t99 12July 2001 ParaskevasLouloudakis v Directive 83lI82lEEC Elliniko Dimosio(Greek Means of transport State) temporarily imported Tax exemptions- Normal residence in a Member State Fine for improperly importing exempt from tax Principleof proportionality - Goodfaith 222222 Subject-matter c- 16/0016/00c- 27 September2001 Cibo ParticipationsSA v Sixth VAT Directive Directeur r6gional des Economic activity impöts du Nord-Pas-de- trnvolvement of a holding Calais company in the management of its subsidiaries Deduction of VAT charged on services purchased by a holding company in the contextof the acquisitionof a shareholding in a subsidiary Receipt of dividends by a holding company c-294t99 4 October2001 Athinaiki Zithopoiia AE Taxation of company v Elliniko Dimosio profits - Parentcompanies (Greek State) and subsidiaries Directive 90l435|EEC Conceptof withholding tax 'Goed c-326t99 4 October2001 Stichting Wonen' Sixth VAT Directive v Staatssecretarisvan Power of a Member State Financiön to treat certain rights in rem in immovable property astangible property capable of supply - Restriction of the exercise of that power to caseswhere the price of the right in rem is at least equalto the econornicvalue of the property concerned Letting and leasing of immovable property Exemptions c-409/98 9 October2001 Commissionersof Sixth VAT Directive Customs& Excisev Exemption for the leasing Mirror Groupplc or letting of immovable propefiy Meaning Undertaking to become a tenant ?23 Subject-matter c-108/99 9 October2001 Commissionersof Sixth VAT Directive Customs& Excisev Exemptionfor the leasing CantorFiugerald or letting of immovable International property Meaning Supplyof services- Third party taking over a lease for consideration c-267t99 11October 2001 ChristianeUrbing-Adam Sixth VAT directive v Administration de Concept of liberal I'enregistrementet des profession Managing domaines agent of buildings in co- ownership c-78/00 25 October2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Italian Republic Articles L7 and 18 of the Sixth VAT Directive Issueof Governmentbonds to refund excessVAT Categoryof taxablepersons whose tax position is in credit c-338/98 8 November2001 Commission of the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of the Articles 17(2)(a) and Netherlands 18(1Xa)of the Sixth VAT Directive National legislation allowing an employer to deduct, as input tax, a certain percentageof an allowance paid to an employeefor businessuse of a private vehicle c-184/00 22 November20Al Office desproduits Sixth VAT Directive wallonsASBL v Belgian Article 114(lXa) State Taxable amount Subsidiesdirectly linked to theprice 224224 Subject-mater c-235/00 13December 20Al Commissionersof Sixth VAT Directive Customs& Excise v Article 138(dX5) - CSC Financial Services Exempt transactions Ltd Transactions in securities Negotiation Provision of a call centre service TRANSPORT c-36r/98 18January 2A01 Italian Republic v Council Regulation (EEC) Commissionof the No 2408192- Application EuropeanCommunities for annulment of Commission Decision 981710/EC- Distribution of air traffic between the airporrs of Milan 'Malpensa2000' c-797t99 18January 2001 Skills Motor Coaches Sociallegislation relating to Ltd, B.J. Farmer,C.J. road transport Burley, B. Denman Tachograph record sheets Obligation to record periods of work, breaks in work and rest periods c-205t99 20 February2001 AsociacionProfesional Freedom to provide de EmpresasNavieras de services Mar itime Lfneas Regulares (Analir) cabotage- Conditions for and Others v the grant and continuation Administraciön General of prior administrative del Estado authorisation- Concurrent application of the methods of imposing public service obligations and of concluding public service contracts c-83/00 15March 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations Kingdom of the Failure to transpose Netherlands Directive 97lz4l$C Components and characteristics of two or three-wheelmotor vehicles 225225 Subject-matter c494t99 5 April 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations HellenicRepublic Failure to transpose Directive94/56/EC c-444t99 l0 May 2001 Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations ItalianRepublic Directive 92lrc6lEEC Failure to transposewithin the prescribedperiod c-70t99 26 lune 2001 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations PortugueseRepublic Air travel within the Community Different rates of airport tax for national and intra- Community flights Freedom to provide services Regulation (EEC)No 2408t92 c447/99 4 luly 2001 Commissionof the Failureof a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations ItalianRepublic Article 59 of theEC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 49 EC) Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 Access for Communityair carriersto intra-Communityair routes - Departuretax c-370/00 20 September2A0l Commissionof the Failureby a MemberState EuropeanCommunities v to fulfil its obligations- Ireland Failure to incorporate Directives 96l49lEC and 96/87lEC into nationallaw 226226 Case Date Parties Subject-matter c-468/00 20 September2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations French Republic Directive 96154ßC Carriage of goods and passengers in the Community Harmonisation of the conditions for obtaining national boatmasters' certificates for inland waterways Non- implementation within the prescribedperiod c-107/01 13December 2001 Commissionof the Failure by a Member State European Communities v to fulfil its obligations Grand Duchy of Directive 98176lEC Luxembourg Failure to transposewithin the prescribedperiod 227227 2. Synopsisof the other decisionsof the Court of Justice which appearedin the 'Proceedings'in 2001 Case Subject-matter c-l r I/99P 25 lanuary2001 Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH Appeal ECSC State v Commissionof the aid to steel undertakings- EuropeanCommunities Appeal manifestly inadmissibleand unfounded Cases 1 February2001 Area Cova SA and Appeal Fisheries c-300/99 P Others, Xunta de Measures for the and Galicia v Council of the conservationof resources- c-388/99 P European Union and Community catch quota for Others Greenland halibut Appeal in part clearly inadmissible and in part clearly unfounded c-301/99P 1 February2001 Area Cova SA and Appeal Fisheries Others v Council of the Measures for the European Union and conservationof resources- Others Community catch quota for Greenland halibut Appeal in part clearly inamissible and in part cleartly unfounded c-445/A0R 23 February2001 Republicof Austria v Proceedings for interim Council of the European relief System of Union ecopointsfor goodsvehicles in transitthrough Austria - Regulation (EC) No 2012/2000- Suspensionof operation- Urgency 229 Subject-matter Cases 15March 2001 Petrolvilla & Bortolotti Article 104(3) of the Rules c-279t99 SpA v Direzione delle of Procedure Answers c-293t99, Entrate per la Provincia that can clearly be deduced c-296t99, di Trento from the case-law C-330199and c-336t99 Energy Service Srl v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento Pavarini Components SpA v Direzione delle Entrate per la Provincia di Trento Hötel Bellavistadi Litterini Valter e Nadia snc, cattoni Hötel Plaza di Cattoni Gian Carlo e C. Snc, Villa Luti Srl v Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento, Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento Tumedei SpA v Centro di Servizio delle Imposte Dirette e Indirette di Trento c-518/99 5 April 2001 Richard Gaillard v Article 104(3)of the Rules Alaya Chekili of Procedure Brussels Convention- Article16(1) - Exclusivejurisdiction in proceedingswhich have as their objectrights in rem in immovable property Scope Action for rescissionof a contractof saleof immovableproperty and for damages 230230 Case Subiect-matter c4a7D9 2 May 2001 OGT Article 104(3) of the Rules F ruchthandelsgesell schaf of Procedure- Bananas- t mbH v Hauptzallamt Common organisationof the Hamburg-St. Annen market-GATT-Direct effect - First paragraphof Article 234 of rhe EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC) c-345/00P 10May 2001 Födörationnationale Appeal * Regulation(EC) d'agriculturebiologique No 1804/1999 des rögions de France Prohibition of using (FNAB), Syndicat indications suggesting an europdendes organic method of transformateurset production in the labelling distributeursde produits and advertising of products de I'agriculture not obtained by that biologique (Setrab),Est production method Distribution Biogam Temporary derogation for SARL v Council of the existing trade-marks EuropeanUnion Application for annulment - Inadmissible- Appeal manifestly unfounded c-1/00sA 29 May 2001 CotecnaInspection SA v Application for Commissionof the authorisation to serve EuropeanCommunities garnishee order on the Commission of the EuropeanCommunities c-330/00P 21 June2001 Alsace InternationalCar Appeal Public service Services SARL (AICS) contract - Chauffeur- v EuropeanParliament driven transport of passengersfor the European Parliamentat Strasbourg- Tenders Compliance with national law Rejection of a bid Appeal manifestly inadmissible in part and manifestly unfounded in part. 23r23r Subject-matter c-35U99 c-35PP U99 28 June2001 Eridania SpA, Appeal Common Industria Saccarifera organisationof the markets Italiana Agroindustriale in sugar Storagecosts SpA (ISD, system- Authorisationfor Sadam Zuccherifici, the grantingof nationalaid divisione della SECI - Withdrawal - SocietäEsercizi Marketing year 199511996 Commerciali Industriali Action by sugar spA, producers Measures SadamCastiglionese concerning them directly SpA, and individually SadamAbruzzo SpA, Provisionfixing the amount Zuccherificiodel Molise of repaymentto equalise spA, sugar storage costs SocietäFondiaria Inadmissibility IndustrialeRomagnola SpA (SFIR)v Councilof the European Union, Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities, PontecoZvccheri SpA c-352t99P 28 June2001 EridaniaSpA, Appeal Common IndustriaSaccarifera organisationof the markets ItalianaAgroindustriale in sugar- Pricesystem - SpA (ISD, Regionalisation SadamZuccherifici, Classificationof ltaly divisionedella SECI - Marketing year 199511996 SocietäEsercizi Action by sugar CommercialiIndustriali producers Measure SpA, concerning them directly SadamCastiglionese and individually SpA, Provisionfixing the derived SadamAbruzzo SpA, interventionprice of white Zuccherificiodel Molise sugarfor all areasof Italy SpA, - Inadmissibility SocietäFondiaria IndustrialeRomagnola SpA (SFIR)v Councilof the European Union, Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities PontecoZuccheri SpA 232232 Subject-matter c-24U99 3 July2001 Confederaci6n Article 104(3) of the Rules Intersindical Galega of Procedure Social (CIG) v Servicio Galego policy - Protection of the de Saüde(Sergas) health and safety of workers Directives 89/391/EEC and 931104/EC- Scope- Primary care services personnel Average period of work - Inclusion of time on call c-341l00P 5 July 2A0I Conseil national des Appeal - Regulation (EC) professionsde No 2790/1999 Appeal I'automobile(CNPA), clearly unfounded and Föddrationnationale des clearly inadmissible distributeurs,loueurs et rdparateursde materiels de bätiments-travaux publics et de manutention(DLR), Auto Contröle 31 SA, Yam 31 SARL, Roux SA, Marc Foucher-Creteau, Verdier distribution SARL v Commissionof the European Communities c-497/99 P 10Juty 2001 Irish Sugarplc v Appeal - Article 86 of the Commissionof the EC Treaty (now Article 82 EuropeanCommunities EC)-Sugar-Collective dominantposition - Abuse Appeal partly clearly inadmissible and partly clearly unfounded c-86/00 10July 2001 HsB-WohnbauGmbH Referencefor a preliminary ruling Entry in the commercial register of the transfer of a company's registeredoffice - Lack of jurisdiction of the Court 233233 Subject-matterSubject-matter c-1/01P 20 September2001 Asia Motor France SA, Competition Decision Andr6-FrangoisBach, rejecting complaints Monin automobilesv Appeal in part manifestly Commission of the inadmissible and in part European Communities manifestly unfounded c-30/00 1I October2001 William Hinton & Sons Article 104(3) of the Rules Ld' v FazendaPüblica of Procedure Post- clearance recovery of import duties Entry in the accounts of the import duties to be collected Expiry of the time-limit for taking action for recovery - Article 254 of the Act of Accession of Spain and Portugal - Obligation incumbent on the Portuguese Republic to proceed,at its own costs, to eliminate certain stocks of product c-241l00P 18October 2001 Kiss GlassCo. Ltd v Appeal Competition Commission of the Dominant position European Communities, Market in float glass Pilkington United Rights of the complainant Kingdom Ltd Appeal manifestly unfounded 'City c-281l00P 23 October2001 Una Film Rewe' Directiv e 98/43 IEC relating GmbH v European to the advertising and Parliament,Council of sponsorship of tobacco the EuropeanUnion products-Appeal-No need to adjudicate Burden of costs c-313/00P 23 October2001 Zino Davidoff et Directiv e 98/43 IEC relating Davidoff & Cie v to the advertising and EuropeanParliamentn sponsorship of tobacco Council of the European products-Appeal-No Union need to adjudicate Burden of costs 234234 Case Date Parties Subject-matter c-430/00P 13November 2A01 Anton Dürbeck GmbH v Appeal Common Commissionof the organisationof the markets EuropeanCommunities - Bananas- imports from ACP States and third countries- Applicationfor additional import licences Instance of undue strictness Transitional measures- Article 30 of Regulation (EEC) No 404193- Limitation of damage Action for annulment c-208t99 27 November2001 PortugueseRepublic v EAGGF, Orientation Commissionof the Section Commission EuropeanCommunities decisionabol ishing financial assistance granted under Article I of Regulation (EEC) No 42s6t88 Action for partial annulment directed against the designation of a Member State as addresseeof the decision Manifest inadmissibility 2ta02ta0 6 December2001 Opinion delivered under Cartagena Protocol - Article 300 EC Conclusion Legal basis - Articles 133 EC, 174(4) EC and 175(1) EC Living modified organisms - Environmentalprotection Common commercial policy 235 3. Statisticsof judicial activity of the Court of Justice I Generalactivity General ofactivity ofthe CourtCourtthe Table1: Generalactivitv in 2001 Casescompletedcompleted Cases Table 2: Natureof proceedings Table3: Judgments,opinions, orders Table4: Meansby which terminated Table 5: Benchhearing case Table6: Basisof the action Table 7: Subject-matterof the action Table 7a: Decisionsin proceedingsfor interim measures:outcome Length ofLength proceedingsproceedingsof Table8: Natureof proceedings Figure I: Durationof proceedingson referencesfor a preliminaryruling fiudgmentsand orders) Figure II: Durationof proceedingsin direct actions(udgments and orders) Figure III: Durationof proceedingsin appeals(udgments and orders) The introductionThe inintroduction in1996 of1996 ofa anew computer-basednew system computer-basedfor system forthe managementthe of management ofcasescases before thebefore Courtthe resultedCourt in resulted ina changea in change thein presentationthe of presentation ofthe statisticsthe appearing statistics in appearing inthethe AnnualReport. This meansthat for certaintables and figurescomparison with statistics before1995 is not possible. 237 New cases Table9: Natureof proceedings Table 10: Type of action Table 11: Subject-matterof the action Table 12: Actionsfor failure to fulfil obligations Table13: Basisof the action Casespending as at 3I December2001 Table L4: Natureof proceedings Table15: Benchhearing case Generaltrmd General trmdin inthe workthe ofwork ofthe Counthe upCoun rcup rc31 December31 20012001 December Table 16: New casesand judgments Table 17: New referencesfor a preliminaryruling (by MemberState per year) Table 18: Referencesfor a preliminaryruling (by MemberState and by court orcourt ortribunal)tribunal) 238238 Generalactivity of the Court 'F Table 1: General activity in 200I Completedcases 3e8 (434) New cases (s04) Casespending 83e (e43) In Inthis tablethis andtable thoseand which those follow, which follow,the figuresthe infigures inbrackets (gross bracketsfigures) (gross figures)represent thethe represent total numbertotal ofnumber ofcases, without cases, account withoutbeing account takenbeing of taken ofthe joinder the ofjoinder ofcases on cases groundson ofof grounds similarity(one case number : onecase). For thefigures without brackets (net figures), a setof ioinedcases is takenas onecase. 239239 Casescompleted Table 2: Nature of proceedings Referencesfor a preliminaryruling 153 (r82) Direct actions r78 (r7e) Appeals s3 (5e) Appealsconcerning interim measures 11 (11) and interventions Opinions I (1) Specialforms of procedureI 2Q) Total 3e8 (434) The followingare considered to be "specialforms ofprocedure": laxationofcosts (Article 74 ofthe RulesofProcedure); legal aid (Article 76 ofthe RulesofProcedure); application to toset aset judgmenta asidejudgment (Articleaside (Article94 94of ofthe Rulesthe ofRules ofProcedure); third Procedure); thirdparty proceedingsproceedingsparty (Article (Article97 of97 of the Rulesthe ofRules ofProcedure); interpretation Procedure); of interpretation ofa judgment a (Article judgment (Article102 of102 of thethe Rules ofRules ofProcedure); revisionProcedure); ofrevision ofa ajudgment (Articlejudgment (Article98 98of ofthe theRules ofRules ofProcedure);Procedure); rectification ofrectification ofa judgmenta (Articlejudgment 66(Article of66 of the Rulesthe ofRules ofProcedure); attachment Procedure);procedureprocedure attachment @roocol on@roocol Privilegeson and PrivilegesImmunities); and cases Immunities);conceming cases immunity conceming(Protocol immunity on (Protocol PrivilegesPrivilegeson andImmunities). 240 Table 3: Judgments, opinions, orders 1 Non- Nature of Interlocutory Judgments interlocutory Other orders 4 Opinions Total proceedings orders 3 orders 2 Referencesfor a 113 L7 11 23 r54 preliminary ruling Direct actions 111 II 22 66 180 Appeals 19 30 22 44 55 Appeals 1111 lt concerning interim measuresand interventions Subtotal ,,400 Opinions II II ')') Specialforms of 11 11 procedure Subtotal II ,'t ],,,.,','' TOTAL 244 49 L6L6 93 11 403403 Net figures. Orders terminating proceedingsby judicial determination(inadmissibility, manifest inadmissibilityand so forth). Ordersmade following an applicationon the basisof Article 185or 186of the EC Treaty (now Articles242 EC and243 EC), Article 187of theEC Treaty(now Article 244 EC) ot the correspondingprovisions of the EAEC and ECSCTreaties, or following an appeal againstan order concerninginterim measures or intervention. Ordersterminating the case by removalfrom theregister, declaration that it will notproceed to judgment,or referralto the Courtof First Instance. 24r24r Table4: Means by which terminated Appeals Means by which Din:ct Refererces fbr a concerningconcerningSpecial forms AppealsAppeals Toal terminatcd actiorsactiors preliminary ruling interiminterim of ofprocedureprocedure measures and interventions JudgmentsJudgments Action founded 79 (80) 7e (80) Action 44 (4) II (l) 5 (5) partially founded Action partially II (l) I (l) inadmissibleand founded Acrion unfounded 2323 (23) 15 (20) 38 (43) Appealmanifestly I (1) I (l) inadmissibleand unfounded Setaside and not 2 (2',) 2 (2) referredback Partiallyset aside 1 (l) I (l) and not referred back Inadmissible 3 (3) 3 (3) Preliminaryruling il3 (135) 113 (135) Interlocutory II II judgment Totaljudgments 1,1,I', ,t't,3',, Iiii.,'.'',.,'l,i:(l:)' (cont.) 242242 (cont,) Appeals concerning Means by which Direct Refbrencestbr a Special fbrms Appeals inrcrim Toul tcrminarcd ägtlons preliminary ruling of procedure measuresand intervcntions Orders Action unfounded 11 (1) 1 (l) Manifest lack of I (l) I (t) jurisdiction Manifest lack of 2 (2) 2 (2) jurisdiction and manifest inadmissibility Inadmissibility II (l) i (t) Manifest 22 (2) 2 (2) inadmissibility Appeal 10 (l0) II0 (10) manifestly inadmissible Appeal partially II (l) II (1) manif'estly inadmissibleand unfounded Appeal manifestly l3 (14) l3 (14) inadmissible and unfounded Appeal unfounded I (1) i (l) Appeal manifestly 66 (6) I (l) 7 (7) unfounded Set aside and 1 (l) 1 (l) referred back Set aside and not 8 (8) I (8) referred back Subrotal 5:':,:,:;:1:i::::'',:,6$),': '1,1'1,1 II (Ir) Removal from the 66 (67) 23 (23) 2 {2) 91 (e2) register No need to 2 (2) 2 (2) adjudicate Art. 104(3)of the t2 (le) L2 (19) Rules of Procedure :..".4.:..".4. Subtotal 35 (42y:,,, 105105i(i1.ili3.) Total orders (,1,,1) { 1') 1,53,1,53,'(163l, Opinions II (t) TOTAL 178 (17e) 153 (182) 53 (5e) 1111 (11) 2 (2) 3e8 (434) 243 Table5: Benchhearing case Benchhearing case Judgments Orders I Total Full Court 27 (33) 22 a) 2e (35) Smallplenum 2L Q4) 2r Q4) Chambers(3 judges) 58 (se) 34 (42) e2 (101) Chambers(5 judges) 138 (1s5) 13 (13) 151 (168) President 11 (11) 11 (11) Total 244 Q7r) 60 (68) 304 (33e) Orders terminatingOrders proceedings terminatingby proceedings judicialby determinationjudicial (other determinationthan (other thosethan removing those a removing casecasea from thefrom register,the declaring register, that declaring athat casea will case willnot proceednot to proceed judgmentto or judgment orreferring areferring casea toto case the Court of First Instance). 244 Table6: Basisof the action Basis of the action Judgments/Opinions Orders I Total Article226 EC 80 (81) 80 (81) Article230 EC 25 (2s) 11 ;; 26 (26) Article 234 EC 112 (134) t6 (23) r28 (157) Article238 EC 44 (4) 4 (4) Article300 EC 11 1 (1) Article I of the 197L Protocol ii 11 ;; 1 (1) Article 49 of the EC Sratute 99 ,: 29 (30) 38 (41) Article 50 of the EC Statute 11 (11) 11 (11) ',Q22;) Total EC Treatv .(66) ,2:8i,9 Article 33 CS 1 (1) 1 (1) Article 4l CS 1 (1) 1 (1) Article 49 of the CS Statute I (3) 11 (1) 2 (4) Total CS Treaty ,t,t (lli, Article 91 of the Rules of Procedure II 1- Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure 11 (1) I (1) Protocol on privileges and immunities 1 (1) 1 (1) Staff Regulations 99 (10) e (10) OVERALL TOTAL 245 Q72) 60 (68) 305 (340) Ordersterminating Orders the terminating casethe (other case than(other bythan removalby from removal thefrom register, the declarationregister, that declaration thethethat casewill not proceedto judgmentor referralto the Courtof First Instance). 245 Table7: Subject-matterof the action Subject-matrcrof rhe action Judgments/Opinions Ordersr Total Agriculnrre 28 (30) 77 35 (37) Approximation of laws 15 (r7) 2215 (17) Brussels Convention 11 (1) 11 (1) Commercial policy 66 (7> II (1) 77 (8) Common Customs Tariff 77 (7) 77 (7) Community own resources II (1) 11 (1) Company law 77 (e) 11 (1) 88 (10) Competition 11 (13) 55 (5) T6 (18) Customs Union 33 (3) 33 (3) Environment and consumers 20 (21) 10 (; 30 (31) Europeancitizenship II (1) II (1) 22 (2) External relations 88 (8) II (1) 99 (e) Fisheries policy 22 (2) 22 (3) 44 (5) Free movement of persons 66 (6) ] 66 (6) Free movement of capital 22 (2) 22 (2) | Free movement of goods 66 (6) ;; ;l 88 (8) | Freedom to provide services L2L2 (20) (20)II 13 (24) ll Freedom of establishment 33 (4) 22 55 (6) | Industrial policy 33 (3) 33 (3) | Intellectual property 11 (1) II (1) | Law governing ttre institutions 77 ;; 88 (8) Principles of Community law 11 tltltltl II (1) Regional policy II II (1) Social policy t8 (18) 11 29 (2e) Social security for migrant workers 11 (16) 11 (16) State aid 99 (8) 99 (8) Taxation 33 (34) 44 37 (42) Transport 11 (1l) olol11 (11) EC Treaty CS Treaty 33 (5) II (t) 44 (6) Privilegesand immunities 1 (1) I (1) Procedure 11 (1) 1 (1) Staff Regulations 99 (10) 7 (7) 16 (17) Others 10 (11) 88 (8) 18 (1e) OVERALL TOTAL 245 (272) 60 (68) 305 (340) Orders terminatingOrders the terminating casethe (other case than(other bythan removalby fromremoval thefrom register, the declarationregister, tlnt declaration tlntthethe casewill not proceedtojudgment or referralto the CourtofFirst Instance). 246 Table7a: Decisionsin proceedingsfor interim measures:outcome Outcome Number of Number of appeals Subject-matter applicationsfor concerninginterinr Dismissed/Contested Graued/Contesred interim measures measuresand inlerventiors decisionupheld decisionset aside Accession of new States II II Commercial poticy II 11 Competition II 11 Environment and consumers 88 88 Freedomof establishment 11 11 ')') Law governing the institutions 11 11 Social policy II 11 t4, ,1.li,1.li Total EC Treatv . ..l.5...... l.5.... ',.,,,I0 CS Treaty II EA Treaty OVERALL TOTAL 55 1111 66 1010 247 Length of proceedingsI Table 8: Nature of proceedings 2 (Decisionsby way of judgments and orders3) Referencesfor a preliminaryruling 22.7 Direct actions 23.1 Appeals 16.3 The followingThe typesfollowingof types casesof are cases excludedare from excluded thefrom calculationthe of calculation theof lengththe of length proceedings:proceedings:of casesinvolving cases aninvolving interloculoryan judgment interloculoryor judgment aor measurea of measure ofinquiry; opinionsinquiry; and opinions rulingsand ononrulings agreements;special agreements;forms special offorms procedureof (namely proceduretaxation (namely of taxation ofcosts, legal costs, aid,legal applicationaid, toto application set aset judgmenta aside,judgment thirdaside, thirdparty proceedings,party interpretation proceedings,of interpretation ofa judgment, a revisisnjudgment, ofrevisisn ofaa judgment, rectificationjudgment, ofrectification aof judgment,a atüachmentjudgment,procedure, atüachmentcases procedure, conceming cases immunity);immunity); conceming casesterminated cases by terminated anby orderan removingorder the removing casethe from case thefrom register,the declaringregister, that declaring itthat itwill will notnot proceed toproceed tojudgment orjudgment orreferring referringor ortransfering transferingit itto tothe theCourt Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance;Instance; proceedings forproceedings forinterim interim measures andmeasures andappeals concemingappeals conceminginterim interimmeasures andandmeasures interventions.interventions. In thisIn tablethis andtable theand figuresthe which figures follow,which follow,the lengththe of length proceedingsof is proceedings expressedis in expressed monthsmonthsin and tenthsand of tenths ofmonths.months. Other thanOther ordersthan terminating orders a terminating casea by case removalby from removal thefrom register,the declaration register, that declaration thethat casecasethe will willnot proceednot o proceed ojudgrnent or judgrnent orreferral to referral theto Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst Instance.Instance.First 248 Figure I: Duration of proceedingson referencesfor a preliminary ruling r) fudgments and orders aa oo aa dd 15 oo r+,r+, ll oo oolElE ll .o.o -- EE10 :):) cc <12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 months Otherthan orders disposing of a caseby removalfrom the registeror a declarationthat the casewill not proceedtojudgment. 249 FigureII: Duration of proceedingsin direct actions (iudgments and orders 1) 35 30 825 oo oo II oo II II b20 II LL oo .o.o E15 == cc 10 55 00 Other thanOther ordersthan disposingorders of disposing ofa casea by case byremoval fromremoval fromthe register,the aregister, adeclaration. that declaration. thethat casethe will case willnotnot proceedio proceed judgmentio or judgment orreferral toreferral theto Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst Instance.Instance.First 250 Figure III: Duration of proceedingsin appeals (iudgmentsand ordersr) oo (u(u{,{, ()() rFrFoo ool-l- .o.o EE ff LL <12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2A 21 2727>27>27 months Other than orders disposing of a case by removal from the register, a declarationthat the case will not proceedto judgment or referral to the Court of First Instance. 25r25r Ir{ewcases I Table 9: Nature of proceedings Referencesfor a preliminaryruling 237 Directactions 187 Appeals 72 Appealsconcerning interim measures and 77 interventions Opinions/Rulings Specialforms of procedure II Gross figures. 252252 Table 10: Type of action Referencesfor a preliminary ruling 237 Direct actions r87 of which: - for annulment of measures 28 - for failure t0 act - for damages - for failure to fulfil obligations r57 - on arbitration clauses 22 - others Appeals Appeals concerning interim measuresand interventions OpinionslRulings Total Specialforms of procedure of which: - Legal aid - Taxation of costs 11 - Revision of a judgment/order - Application for an attachmentprocedure - Third party proceedings - Interpretation of a judgment - Applicationto set a judgment aside Total Applications for interim measures 253 Table 11: Subject-matter of the action I fbr Appeals concerning Special Direct Ret'ererrces a Subject-matterof üe acrion preliminary Appeals interim measures Tonl f'orms of actions ruling and interventions procedure Accession of new States 11 11 Agriculture 24 ;; 88 51 Approximation of laws 18 45 63 Brussels Convention 66 66 Commercial policy 33 II II 55 Company law 99 15 24 Competition 55 15 66 44 30 Customs Union 22 77 II Energy II II Environment and consumers 49 55 II 55 External relations 22 44 22 88 Fisheries policy 22 22 44 Free movement of capital 66 66 Free movement of goods 44 77 11 Freedom of esablishment 33 1l aa 15 Freedom of movement for persons 33 10 l3 Freedom to provide services 99 L4 23 Indusnial policy 44 44 Intellectual property 22 13 l5 Justice and home affairs II 22 33 Law governing the institutions 55 88 13 Principles of Community law II 22 II 44 Privileges and immunities II II Social security for migrant workers II 22 33 Social policy 55 24 ;; 32 State aid 55 55 55 15 Taxation 88 28 36 Transport 15 66 II 22 EC Treaty 5o5o tltl 4ilii::4ilii:: CS Treaty ü''1.,...... ,l:6. EA Treaty 7t,7t, II ,8 Procedure II Staff Regulations II l5 r6 Others Xi:Xi: OVERALL TOTAL r87r87 237 7272 77 503 II Taking no account of applications for interim measures(5). 254 Table 12: Actions for failure to fulfil obligations I Brought against From 1953 to 2001 Belgium 13 256 Denmark 22 24 Germany 13 156 Greece 15 245 Spain 15 912 France 20 265 3 Ireland t2 1,23 Italy 2l 427 Luxembourg 10 12l Netherlands 55 77 Austria 77 28 Portugal 77 7l Finland 33 88 Sweden 33 88 United Kingdom 11 624 Total 1 9229221 Articles169,170,171 and 225 of theEC Treaty(now Articles 226F;C,227 EC,22BEC and 298 EC), Articles l4l, 142, 143EA and Arricle 88 CS. Includingone actionunder Article 170 of the EC Treaty (now Article 227 EC), broughtby the Kingdomof Belgium. Includingone action under Article 170of the EC Treaty(now Article 227 EC), broughtby Ireland. Includingtwo actionsunder Article 170of theEC Treaty(now Article 227 EC), broughtby theFrench Republicand theKingdom of Spainrespectively. 255 Table 13: Basis of the action Basis of the action 200r200r Article 213 EC Article 226 EC t47 Article 227 EC Article 228 EC 33 Article 230 EC 28 Article 232 EC Article 234 EC 23r Article 235 EC Article 237 EC Article 238 EC ;; Article 298 EC Article 300 EC Article 1 of the l97I Protocol 66 Article 49 of the EC Starute 50 Article 50 of the EC Statute 77 ToualEC Treaty Article 33 CS Article 49 CS 66 Total CS Treaty Article L4I EA '7i;:...i.''i':::: t.;...... :,:.....: .1:.:i:::::i::::::: Article 50 of the EA Starute :.I.:.:...;:.:.:.: jiiiiii Total EA Treaty :l,:'i:l.l::'liit:::.:,8i,:ii;i:i Total Article 74 of the Rulesof Procedure 11 Staff Regulations 15 OVERALL TOTAL 256 Casespending as at 3I December2001 Table 14: Nature of proceedings Refbrencesfor a preliminary ruling 400 (487) Direct actions 326326 (334) Appeals llt (120) Specialforms of procedure 11 (1) Opinions/Rulings II (1) Total 839 (e43) 257 Table 15: Bench hearing case Referencesfor a Bench Other Direct actions preliminary Appeals Total hearing case proceduresl ruling 23r23r (232\ 261261 (318) 7s (82) I (1) 568 (633) 99 (14) 36 (3e) 12 (13) 57 (66) 87,',',,,,,,,.,',,,,.,.(95) 1':'.,:i:,,',,',',:,,,,i(Ll 3 (3) 33 (3) First 3 (3) 3 (3) I (t) 7 (7) Chamber Second 1l (ll) 6 (7) I (l) 18 (le) Chamber Third 4 (4) 2 (2) I (1) II (l) 8 (8) Chamber Fourth s (5) 3 (3) 8 (8) Chamber Fifrh 30 (31) 42 (45) l l (l r) 83 (87) Chamber 33 (34) 47 , (70) 7 (8) 87 (rr2) ,$6',',,,,,,,,':'',,,:,.(SS),r0sr0s 2L, ''t :(li) TOTAL 326 (334) 400 (487) lll ( 120) 22 (2) 839 (943',) Including special forms of procedure and opinions of the Court. 258 Generaltrend in the workof the Cour-tup to 3I December2001 Table 16: New casesand judgments I New cases 2 Year 3 Judgments Direct actions Ref'erencesfbr a Appeals concerning Applications tbr preliminary Appeals interim measures and Total interim ruling interventions measures 1953 44 44 1954 r0 l0 22 1955 99 99 22 44 r956 ll ll 22 66 t957 19 19 22 44 1958 43 43 10 ^1 r959 1l 47 55 l3 1960 23 23 22 18 tt II 1961 25 ;; 26 II 1962 30 55 35 22 7A 1963 99 66 105 11 It t9& 49 66 55 44 31 1965 .15 77 62 44 1966 30 II 31 )) 2424 19671967 l4 23 37 24 1968 24 99 33 II 27 1969 6060 17 77 22 30 197Ct97Ct 1 41 32 79 && tqTl 59 37 96 II 6060 Ä,| 1972 IL 40 82 22 6l r973 l3l 61 t92 66 80 t974 63 39 102102 88 63 t975 6l 69 130 55 78 r976 5l 75 126126 66 88 1W7 74 84 158 66 100 1978 145 r23r23 zffizffi 77 97 t979 1 216 106 | 322 66 138 1980 180 99 279 l4 t32t32 t98t zl4 108 322322 l7 128 r982r982 216 r29r29 345 16 185 1983 199 98 2n ll t5l 1984 183 r29r29 312 17 165 I 985 294294 139 433433 22 ?11 I 986 238 91 329329 23 t74 1987 25r t44 39s39s 2r 208 r988 194 t79 373 17 238 1989 246246 139 385 2A2A 188 o 1990 222 141 l5 II 379 tz t93t93 (Cont.) ' Gross figures; specialforms of procedureare not included. 2 l{et tigures. 3 Including opinions of the Court. 4 Since 1990 staff caseshave beenbrought before the Court of First Instance. 259 (cont.) New cases t Year 3 Direct actions Refbrencesfbr a Appealscorcerning Applicationsfbr Judgnunts2 preliminary Appeals interim measuresand Total interim ruling interventions measures l99l t42 186 l3 II y2 99 2M2M t9g:z 753753 r62r62 2424 II mm 44 2t02t0 1993 26s26s 2U2U 17 486 l3 203203 1994 128 203203 t2 II 344344 44 r88 r995 109 25r25r 46 22 408 33 t72 l!)96 t32t32 256256 25 33 4t64t6 44 193 twltwl r69 239239 3030 55 43 II 242242 r998 t47 2& ffiffi 44 481 22 254254 1999 2t4 255255 6868 44 541541 44 235235 2m2m 199 224224 66 l3 fizfiz 44 273 200r200r 187 237237 72 77 503 55 244244 Total 68234 4 618 454454 4242 u u937937 326326 5 513 t Gtoss figures; special forms of procedure are not included. 2 Net figures. 3 Including opinions of the Court. 4 Up to 3l December 1989, 2 388 of them are staff cases. 260 Table 17: New references for a preliminary ruling I (by Member Stateper year) 1961 II II r962 55 55 1963 II 55 66 19(0/.19(0/. 22 44 66 I 965 44 22 II 77 1966 II II tl 11 1967 55 33 II 33 23 1968 II 44 II II 22 II 1969 44 ilil II II 17 1970 44 2l 22 22 33 32 II 191| II l8 66 55 II 66 37 1972 55 2A 44 l0 40 t973 88 37 44 55 II 66 6l 1974 55 l5 66 55 77 39 t975 77 76 l5 r4 II 44 69 r976 tt 28 II II 12 t4 75 1977 l6 30 l4 22 77 99 84 I 978 77 11 46 12 II 1l 38 123123 1979 l3 33 18 22 l9 II 11 106 1980 l4 24 l4 11 l9 l7 99 1981 t2 4l 17 l1 44 L7 108 I 982 l0 36 39 l8 2r 44 r29r29 I 983 II 36 l5 22 II T9 66 98 1984 l3 38 34 II 10 2222 99 129129 1985 l3 40 45 22 1l 66 t4 88 139 r986 l3 l8 l9 t+t+tt 55 II 16 88 91 19811981 15 32 36 22 55 33 19 99 1988 30 34 38 28 22 26 l6 1989 l3 47 28 II 10 tt t8 l4 i990 17 34 2r 44 25 44 99 t2 (cont.) Article 177of the EC Treaty(now ^rüicle234 EC), Article 4l CS, Article 150EA, 1971Protocol. 26r26r (cont.) BENE-BENE- Ycar BB DKDK DD ELEL EE FF IRL II LL NL AA PP FIN ss UKUK Toal LUX t99l l9 22 54 33 55 29 22 3636 22 t7 33 l4 186 rw2 l6 33 6262 II 55 l5 2222 II l8 II l8 t62 1993 nn 77 57 55 77 22 II 2424 II 43 33 T2T2 2M2M t994t994 t9 44 44 l3 36 22 4646 II l3 II 2424 243243 l995 l4 II 5l l0 l0 43 33 58 22 l9 22 55 66 2n2n 25r r996 3030 44 66 44 66 24 70 22 l0 66 66 33 44 2l 256256 t9g7t9g7 l9 77 46 22 99 l0 II 50 33 24 35 22 66 77 l8 239239 1998 L2L2 77 49 55 55 l6 33 39 22 2l r6 77 22 66 2424 2& 1999 l3 33 49 33 44 17 22 43 44 23 5656 77 44 55 2222 255255 20002000 l5 33 47 33 55 t2 22 50 t2 3l II 55 44 2626 II 224224 2001 l0 55 53 44 44 l5 II nn 22 l4 57 44 33 44 2L2L 237237 Total 435 89 t262t2626363 tu 638 4242 7t4 48 542542 2032035050 2323 3636 338 II 46184618 Case C-265100Campina Melhtnie. 262262 Table 18: References for a preliminary ruling (by Member Stateandby court or tribunal) Belgium Luxembourg Cour de cassation 51 Cour supdrieurede justice 10 Cour d'arbitrage 11 Conseild,'Etat L3 Conseil d'Etat 20 Cour administrative 1 Other courts or tribunals 363 Other courtsor tribunals 24 Total 435 Total 48 Denmark Netherlands Hojesteret 16 Raad van State 4T Other courts or tribunals 73 Hoge Raad der Nederlanden 108 Total 89 Centrale Raad van Beroep 42 College van Beroep voor het Germany Bedrijfsleven 100 Bundesgerichtshof 82 Tariefcommissie 34 Bundesarbeitsgericht 44 Other courtsor tribunals 217 Bundesverwaltungs gericht 51 Total 542 Bundesfinanzhof 185 Bundessozialgericht 65 Austria Staatsgerichtshof 11 Verfassungsgerichtshof 3 Other courts or tribunals 874 ObersterGerichtshof 36 Total | 262 Bundesvergabeamt L7 Verwaltungsgerichtshof 32 Greece Vergabekontrollsenat 3 Court of Cassation 33 Other courtsor tribunals LI? Council of State II Total 203 Other courts or tribunals 52 Total 63 Portugal SupremoTribunalAdministrativo28 Spain Other courtsor tribunals 22 Tribunal Supremo 77 Total 50 Audiencia Nacional II Juzgado Central de lo Penal 77 Finland Other courts or tribunals 119 Korkein hallinto-oikeus 6 Total 134 Korkeinoikeus I Högstaförvaltningsdomstolen I France Othercourts or tribunals 15 Cour de cassation 63 Total 23 Conseil d'Etat 23 Other courts or tribunals 552 Sweden Total 638 Högsta Domstolen )) Marknadsdomstolen 33 Ireland Regeringsrätten 10 SuprerneCourt L2 Other courts or tribunals 2l High Court 15 Total 36 Other courß or tribunals 15 Total 42 United Kingdom Houseof Lords 27 Italy Courtof Appeal 23 Corte supremadi Cassazione 72 Othercourts or tribunals 288 Consiglio di Stato 39 Total 338 Other courts or tribunals 603 Total 7t4 BENELUX Court of Justice 1t Total I SYER/II,L T'OT^A,L 4 618 CaseC."265/CA Carrcpin* Ittetkunie . 263 B. Proceedingsof the Court of First Instance 1. Synopsisof the judgments delivered by the Court of First Instance in 2001 267 Agriculture 267 Associationor tna o"rtr;r; rounrrim and trrtiiorim ...... 270 Commercial 27r Competitionllt"l.::...... :. :...... :, ., 272 ECSC 274 Externalrglations.. . s., ,.., ...... , 276 Fisheriespolicy .. ..,. ..., 277 Free movement of goods . . . . r ...... , . , , . 279 Intellectualproperty,. . . . ., ., . . ., . . . .,, . . ., r 280280 Law governing the Institutions ...... 285 Socialpolicy ...... r.... r...... r...,,.. r... 287287 Staff regulationsof officials . . , ...... , . . . , . . . , o . 287287 Stateaid 294 2. Synopsisof the other decisionsof the Court of First Instance which appearedin the 'Proceedings'in 2001, 297 3. Statisticsof judicial activity of the Court of First Instance 299 265265 1. Synopsis of the judgments delivered by the Court of First Instancein 2001 AGRICULTURE T-533t93 31 January2001 Edouard Bouma v Action for damages Council of the Non-contractualliability - EuropeanUnion, Milk - Additional levy - Commissionof the Reference quantity EuropeanCommunities Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking Non- resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking T-73t94 31January 2001 Bernard Beusmansv Action for damages - Council of the Non-contractualliability - EuropeanUnion, Milk - Additional levy - Commissionof the Reference quantity EuropeanCommunities Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking Non- resumption of production on expiry of the undertaking- Withdrawal of the provisionalreference quantity T-76t94 31 January2001 Rendert Jansmav Action for damages Council of the Non-contractualliability - EuropeanUnion, Milk - Additional levy - Commissionof the Reference quantity EuropeanCommunities Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking - Sale of the SLOM holding Limitation period 267 Subject-matter T-r43t97 31 JanuaryZC/l^l Gerhardusvan den Action for damages Bergv Councilof the Non-contractualIiabil ity - EuropeanUnion, Milk - Additionallevy - Commissionof the Reference quantity EuropeanCommunities Producer having entered into a non-marketing undertaking- Transferof the quota to another holding T-r/99 1 February2001 T. Port GmbH& Co. Bananas Common KG v Commissionof organisationof themarkets the European Regulation (EC) No Csmmunities 478195 Export licence scheme Action for damages Proof of damageand causal link T-186/98 7 FebruaryZ0fi.l CompafriaInternacional Fisheries Community de Pescay Derivados financial aid for the (Inpesca)SA v construction of fishing Commissionof the vessels Regulation EuropeanCommunities (EEC) No 4028t86 Requestfor reconsideration - Substantialnew facts- Action for annulmentand damages- Inadmissible Cases 7 February2001 SociedadeAgrfcola dos Action for annulment T-38/99to Arinhos,Ld.l and Commission Decision T-50/99 Othersv Commission 98l653lEC- Emergency of the European measureson the groundof Communities the occurrenceof bovine spongifonnencephal opathy in Portugal- Natural or legal persons Act of direct and individual concern to them Admissibility 268268 Subject-mauer 20 March2001 Cordis Obst und Bananas Imports from GemüseGroßhandel ACP States and third GmbH v Commission countries- Calculationof of the European annual quantity allocated Communities - Action for damages- Admissibility - Possibility of relying on WTO rules Misuse of powers General principles of Community law T-30t99 20 March2001 Bocehi Food Trade Bananas - Imports from International GmbH v ACP States and third Commissionof the countries- Calculationof EuropeanCommunities annual quantity allocated - Action for damages- Admissibility - Possibility of relying on WTO rules Misuse of powers General principles of Community law T-52t99 20 March2001 T. Port GmbH & Co. Bananas - Imports from KG v Commissionof ACP States and third the European countries- Calculationof Communities annual quantity allocated - Action for damages- Admissibility- Possibility of relying on WTO rules Misuse of powers General principles of Community law T-r43/99 14June 2AAl Honiplant SAT v EAGGF - Cancellationof Commissionof the financial assistance EuropeanCommunities Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253188 Cases 12July 2001 Comafrica SpA, Common organisation of T-198/95, Dole Fresh Fruit the markets - Bananas- T-r7U96, EuropeLtd & Co. v Action for annulment T-23A/97, Commission of the Admissibility Legality T-174198and EuropeanCommunities of reduction and T-225t99 adjustment coefficients Action for damages 269 Subject-maner T-2t99 12July 20Al T. Port GmbH& Co. Bananas- Imports from KG v Councilof the ACP States and third EuropeanUnion countries Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 Possibility of relying on WTO rules First paragraphof Article 234of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,first paragraph of Article 307 EC) Action for damages ,.-u, ,.' !, ,1,4" T-3t99 12July 12 20012001July BanatradingGmbH v Bananas- Imports from Councilof the ACP States and third EuropeanUnion countries Regulation (EEC) No 404t93 Possibilityof relying on WTO rules First paragraphof Article 234of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,first paragraph of Article 307 EC) Action for damages ASSOCIATIONOF THE OVERSEASCOUNTRIES AND TERRITORIES T43t98 6 December2001 EmesaSugar (Free Associationof theoverseas Zone)NV v Councilof countriesand territories - the EuropeanUnion Decision 97l803lEC Importsof sugar- Action for annulment-; Action for damages Admissibility Irreversibility of experience acquired Principleof proportionality - Legalcertainty 270 Subject-matter T-44t98 6 December2001 Emesa Sugar (Free Associationof the overseas Lcne) NV v countries and territories - Commissionof the Imports of sugar EuropeanCommunities Refusal to grant import licence Action for annulment Plea of illegality Decision 97t803tEC Irreversibility of experience acquired Principle of proportionality Legal certainty Regulation (EC) No 2553197 COMMERCIALPOLICY T-82/00 5 April 2001 BIC SA, FlamagasSA, Anti-dumping Pocket SwedishMatch SA v lighters originating in Council of the Japan Regulation European[Jnion repealing anti-dumping duties Obligation to statereasons - Action for annulment T-188/99 20 June2001 Euroalliagesv Dumping Decision Commissionof the terminating an expiry EuropeanCommunities review Action for annulment T-58/99 19 September2001 Mukand Ltd, Anti-subsidy proceedings IsibarsLtd, Regulation (EC) No Ferro Alloys 2450198- Stainlesssteel CorporationLtd, bright bars ItUury Viraj Impoexpo Ltd v Causallink Council of the European Union 27r caseloaaleanicslsuuiecr-maner COMPETITION Cases 31 JanuaryZ0/J^l Weyl BeefProducts Article 85(1) of the EC T-197197and BV, Exportslachterij Treaty (now Article 81(1) T-198t97 ChrisHogeslag BV, EC) Action for GroningerVleeshandel annulment- Rejectionof BV v Commissionof a complaint- Community the European interest Relationship Communities between Article 85 and Arricle 92 0f rhe Ec Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87 EC) T-26t99 14 February2001 TrabiscoSA v Competition Commissionof the Distribution of motor EuropeanCommunities vehicles Rejection of complaint Action for annulment T-62/99 14February Z0{.r^l Soci6töde distribution Competition de möcaniqueset Distribution of motor d'automobiles vehicles Rejection of (Sodiman)v complaint Action for Commissionof the annulment EuropeanCommunities T-115/99 14 February2001 Systömeeurop6en Competition promotion(SEP) Distribution of motor SARLv Commission vehicles Rejection of of the European compaint Action for Communities annulment T-rl2t98 20 February2001 Mannesmannröhren- Action for annulment WerkeAG v Competition- Decisionto Commissionof the request information EuropeanCommunities Periodic penaltypayments Right to refuse to provideanswers that imply admission of an infringement Convention for the Protection of lluman Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 272 Subjecrnratter T-206t99 21 March2001 Mötropole t6lövision Competition Rejection SA v Commissionof of a complaint the European Compliance with a Communities judgment of the Court of First Instance annulling an exemption decision of the Commission Duty to state reasons Obligations in relation to the investigation of complaints T-144t99 28 March2001 Institute of Professional Competition - Arficle 85 Representativesbefore of the EC Treaty (now the European Patent Article 81 EC) Office v Commission Professional code of of the European conduct - Ban on Communities comparativeadvertising - Supply of services T-25t99 5 July2001 Colin Arthur Roberts, Competition Beer Valerie Ann Robertsv supply agreements Commissionof the Complaint- Article 85(1) European Communities of the EC Treaty (now Article 81(1) EC) Cases 12July 2001 Tate & Lyle plc, Competition Sugar T-2A2/98, British Sugarplc, market - Infringement of T-204/98and Napier Brown & Co. Article 85 of the EC T-207t98 Ltd v Commissionof Treaty (now Article 81 the European EC) - Fines Communities T-rl2t99 18September 2001 Mötropole t€l6vision Actions for annulment (M6), Suez-Lyonnaise Competition Pay des eaux, France television- Joint venture Töl6com, Töl6vision Article 85 of the EC frangaise1 SA (TF1) v Treaty (now Article 81 Commissionof the EC) - Article 85(1)of the European Communities Treaty Negative clearance Ancillary restrictions Rule of reason- Article 85(3) of the Treaty Exemption decision- Duration 273 Subject-maner T-139/98 22 November2001 Amministrazione Competition- Article 86 Autonomadei of the EC Treaty (now Monopolidi Stato Article 82 EC) - Abuse (AAMS) v Commission of a dominantposition - of the European Italian cigarettesector Communities Distributionagreement Abusivecontract tenns - Abusive conduct - Reductionof fine ECSC T-156/98 3l January2001 RIB Mining v E C S C T r e aty Commissionof the Concentration between EuropeanCommunities undertakings Admissibility - Stateaid T-89/98 7 February2001 NationalAssociation of ECSC - UK market for LicensedOpencast electricity generating coal Operators(NALOO) v Rejection of a Commissionof the complaint alleging EuropeanCommunities discriminatory pricing and abusive royalties Powers of the Commission - Duty to state reasons T-16/98 5 April 2001 Winschaftsvereinigung Competition - ECSC Stahl,AG der Dillinger Information exchange Hüttenwerke,EKO agreement - Notification StahlGmbH, Krupp Commission decision ThyssenNirosta departing from the content GmbH,Thyssen Krupp of the agreement StahlGmbH, Salzgitter Statement of reasons AG (formerlyPreussag StahlAG), Stahlwerke BremenGmbH, ThyssenStahl AG v Commissionof the FuropeanCommunities 274 Subject-matter T-6t99 5 June2001 ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke ECSC Treaty - State aid Feralpi GmbH v Investment aid Commissionof the Operating aid - Scopeof EuropeanCommunities ECSC Treaty - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations Cases 12July 2001 UK Coal plc v ECSC Treaty - Decision T-LZ|99and Commissionof the No 3632|93/ECSC T-63/99 EuropeanCommunities Operating aid and aid for the reductionof activity - Authorisationex post facto of aid already paid Improvement of the viability of recipient undertakings Degression of aid Bonus paid to underground mineworkers (Bergmannsprämie) Amendment of a modernisation! rationalisation and restructuring plan Taking account of a concentration befween undertakings- Statement of reasons T-t71t99 10October 2001 CorusUK Ltd v Action for damages Commissionof the Recovery of undue EuropeanCommunities payments Harm suffered by reason of a partially annulleddecision 275 Subject-matter Cases 13 December2001 Krupp Thyssen E C SC T r e aty T45/98 and StainlessGmbH, Competition T-47t98 AcciaiSpeciali Terni Agreements,decisions and SpA v Commissionof concerted practices the European Alloy surcharge Price Communities fixing Rights of the defence- Durationof the infringement Fine Guidelineson the method of setting fines Cooperation during the administrative procedure Principle of equal treatment T-48/98 13 December2001 Compaf,iaespaf,ola E C SC T r e aty parala fabricacidnde Competition acerosinoxidables SA Agreements,decisions and (Acerinox)v concerted practices Commissionof the Alloy surcharge Price EuropeanCommunities tixing - Burdenof proof Duration of the infringement Fine Guidelineson the method of setting fines Cooperation during the administrative procedure Principle of equal treatment EXTERNALRELATIONS T-26t00 19 September2001 LecureurSA v CommissionRegulation No Commissionof the 2519/97 Food aid EuropeanCommunities Arbitration clause Contractualnature of the dispute- Non-conformity of the goodsdelivered Theftsfrom warehouses- Transfer of the burden of risk Deductionsfrom payments 276 FISHERIESPOLICY T-155/99 23 October2001 Dieckmann & Hansen Common agricul tural GmbH v Commission policy Decision of the European 1999l244lEC amending Communities Decision 97l296lEC drawing up the list of third countries from which the import of fishery products is authorised for human consumption Non- contractualliability of the Community 277 Subject-matter T-196/99 6 December2001 Area Cova,SA, Action for damages Armadoralos6 Pereira, Non-contractualliability - SA, Fisheries Conservation ArmadoresPesqueros of marine resources de Aldän,SA, Convention on Future Centropesca,SA, Multilateral Cooperation in Chymar,SA, the North-west Atlantic Eloymar,SA, Fisheries Greenland Exfaumar,SA, halibut Catch quota Farpespan,SL, allocated to the Freiremar,SA, Community fleet HermanosGandön, SA, Heroya,SA, Hiopesca,SA, Ios6Pereira e Hijos, SA, JuanaOya Pörez, ManuelNores Goru;illez, Moradifla,SA, NavalesCerdeiras, SL, NugagoPesca, SA, PesqueraAustral, SA, Pescaberbds,SA, PesqueriasB(garo Narval,SA, PesqueraCies, SA, PescaHerculina, SA, PesqueraInter, SA, PesqueriasMarinenses, SA, Pesquer(asTara, SA, PesqueraVaqueiro, SA, SoteloDios, SA v Councilof the EuropeanUnion, Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities 278 Subject-matter T-46/A0 11December 20Al Kvitsjoen AS v Fisheries- Measuresfor Commissionof the the conservation and EuropeanCommunities management of fishery resources applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway - Withdrawal of a licence and special fishing permit Audi alteram partem principle Principle of proportionality FREEMOVEMENT OF GOODS Cases 13 February2001 Hewlett Packard Action for annulment T-133198and France,Hewlett Common Customs Tariff T-134i98 Packcard Europe BV v Tariff headings Commissionof the Tariff classification of European Communities certainhardware for use in local area computer networks - Classification in the Combined Nomenclature Cases 10May 2001 Kaufring AG, Action for annulment T-r86t97, Crown Europe GmbH, Importation of television T-r87/97 , Profex Electronic sets from Turkey T-r9}t97, Verwaltungs gesel Ischaf EEC-Turkey Association T-19t/97 , r mbH, Agreement- Article 3(1) T-t92t97, Horten AG, of the Additional Protocol T-2t0t97, Dr. Seufert GmbH, Compensatorylevy T-21U97, Grundig AG, Article 13(1)of Regulation T-2r6t97, Hertie Waren- und (EEC) No 1430t79 T-217t97 , KauftrausGmbH, Remission of import duty T-2r8/97, Lema SA, not justified Rights of T-779t97, Masco SA, the defence T-280t97, DFDS TransportBV, T-293t97, Wilson Holland BV, and T-and 147T- 199199 147 Elta GmbH, Miller NV v Commissionof the EuropeanCommunities 279 Subject-matter T-330t99 7 June2001 SpeditionWilhelm CommunityCustoms Code RotermundGmbH v Remissionof import Commissionof the duties- Specialsituation EuropeanCommunities Fraud in connection with an external Community transit operation INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY T-135/99 31 January20ol Taurus-FilmGmbH & Communitytrade mark - Co. v Office for Term CINE ACTION Harmonisationin the Absolute grounds for InternalMarket (Trade retusal Article 7(1Xc) Marks andDesigns) of Regulation (EC) No (oHIM) 40t94 T-136t99 31 January2001 Taurus-FilmGmbH & Communitytrade mark - Co. v Officefor Term CINE COMEDY - Harmonisationin the Absolute grounds for InternalMarket (Trade retusal Article 7(1)(c) Marks andDesigns) of Regulation (EC) No (oHIM) 40t94 T-193t99 31 January2001 Wm. WrigleyJr. Communitytrade mark - Companyv Office for Term DOUBLEMINT Harmonisationin the Absolute ground for InternalMarket (Trade retusal Article 7(1Xc) Marks andDesigns) of Regulation (EC) No (oHrM) 40t94 T-24tWT-24tW31January 2001 The Sunrider Communifytrade mark - Corporationv Office Term VITALITE for Harmonisationin Absolute ground for the InternalMarket refusal Article 7(1Xc) (TradeMarks and of Regulation (EC) No Designs)(OHIM) 40t94 280280 Case Subject-maner T-33U99 31 January2001 MirsubishiHiTec Community trade mark - Paper Bielefeld GmbH, Word mark Giroform formerly Stora Absolute grounds for CarbonlessPaper refusal Article 7(1Xb) GmbH v Office for and (c) of Regulation (EC) Harmonisationin the No 40/94 Descriptive Internal Market (Trade character Marks and Designs) (oHrM) T-87/00 5 April 2001 Bank für Arbeit und Community trade mark - Wirtschaft AG v Office Term EASYBANK for Harmonisationin Absolute grounds for the Internal Market refusal Article 7(1Xb) (Trade Marks and and (c) of Regulation (EC) Designs) (OHIM) No 40/94 T-359t99 7 June2001 Deutsche Community ffade mark - Krankenversicherung Word mark EuroHealth * AG (DKV) v Office Absolute grounds for for Harmonisationin refusal Descriptive the Internal Market character Distinctive (Trade Marks and character Article Designs)(OHIM) (7)(1Xb) and (c) of Regulation(EC) No 40194 Cases 14June 2001 Telefon & Buch Comrnunity trade mark - T-357/99 and VerlagsgmbH v Office Word marks T-358/99 for Harmonisation in UNIVERSALTELEFONB the Internal Market U U C C H H a a n n dd (Trade Marks and UNIVERSALKOMMUNI Designs)(OHIM) KATIONSVERZETCHNIS Absolute grounds for refusal Descriptive character-Article 7(lXc) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 28T28T Subject-matter T-146100 20 June2001 StefanRuf, Martin Community trade mark - Stierv Office for Payment of the application Harmonisationin the fee after expiry of the InternalMarket (Trade time-limit of one month Marks andDesigns) from filing of the (oHrM) application for registration - Lapse of the right to be accorded as a filing date the date when the application was lodged - Conditions for restitutio in integrum T-r20t99T-r20t9912July 2001 ChristinaKik v Office Article 115 of Regulation for theHarmonisation (EC) No 44194 Rules of the InternalMarket governing languagesat the (TradeMarks and Office for Harmonisation Designs)(OHIM) in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Plea of illegality Principle of non- discrimination T-335/99 19 September}WL Henkel KGaA v Office Community trade mark - for Harmonisation in Shape of a product for the Internal Market washing machines or (Trade Marks and dishwashers Three- Designs) (OHIM) dimensional mark Absolute ground for retusal- Article 7(1xb) of Regulation (EC) No 44t94 T-336t99T-336t9919September 2001 HenkelKGaA v Office Communitytrade mark - for Harmonisationin Shape of a product for the InternalMarket washing machines or (TradeMarks and dishwashers Three- Designs)(OHIM) dimensional mark Absolute ground for retusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 282282 Subject-nratter T-337/99 19 September2001 Henkel KGaA v Office Community trade mark - for Harmonisationin Shape of a product for the Internal Market washing machines or (Trade Marks and dishwashers Three- Designs)(OHIM) dimensional mark Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 T-30/00 19 September2001 Henkel KGaA v Office Community trade mark - for Harmonisation in Tablet for washing the Internal Market machines or dishwashers (Trade Marks and Figurative mark Designs)(OHIM) Ab solute ground fo r refusal Article 7( l Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 T-117/00 19September 2001 Procter & Gamble Community trade mark - Company v Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisation in the washing machines or Internal Market (Trade dishwashers Three- Marks and Designs) dimensional mark (oHrM) Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 T-118/00 19September 2001 Procter & Gamble Community trade mark - Company v Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisationin the washing machines or Internal Market (Trade dishwashers Three- Marks and Designs) dimensional mark (oHrM) Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 4A/94 T-119t00 19September 2001 Procter & Gamble Community trade mark - Companyv Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisation in the washing machines or Internal Market (Trade dishwashers Three- Marks and Designs) dimensional mark (oHrM) Absolute ground for refusal Article 7( lxb) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 283283 Subject-matter T-120/A0 19 September2001 Procter& Gamble Communitytrade mark - Companyv Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisationin the washing machines or InternalMarket (Trade dishwashers Three- Marks andDesigns) dimensional mark (oHrM) Absolute ground for retusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 T-121l00 19 September2001 Procter& Gamble Communitytrade mark - Companyv Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisationin the washing machines or InternalMarkets dishwashers Three- (TradeMarks and dimensional rnark Designs)(OHIM) Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(lxb) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 T-r28/00 19 September2001 Procter& Gamble Communitytrade mark - Companyv Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisationin the washing machines or InternalMarkets dishwashers Three- (TradeMarks and dimensional mark Designs)(OHIM) Absolute ground for refusal Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 T-r29t00T-r29t0019 September2A0l Procter& Gamble Communitytrade mark - Companyv Office for Shape of a product for Harmonisationin the washing machines or InternalMarket (Trade dishwashers Three- Marks apdDesigns) dimensional mark (oHrM) Absolute ground for refusal- Article 7(1Xb) of Regulation (EC) No 40t94 T-140/00 3 October2001 Zapf Creation AG v Communitytrade mark - Office for New Born Baby Harmonistation in the Absolute grounds for Internal Market (Trade retusal- Article 7(1Xb) Marks and Designs) and(c) of Regulation(EC) (oHrM) No 40/94 284 Subject-matter T-128t99 15November 2001 Signal Communications Community trade mark - Ltd v Office for Word mark TELEYE Harmonisation in the Application accompanied Internal Market (Trade by a claim of priority on Marks and Designs) the basis of the earlier (oHrM) mark TELEEYE Request for correction Substantialalteration of the mark T-138/00 I I December2001 Erpo Möbelwerk Community trade mark - GmbH v Office for DAS PRINZIP DER Harmonisationin the BEQUEMLICHKEIT Internal Market (Trade Absolute grounds for Marks and Designs) refusal Article 7(1Xb) (oHrM) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 LAW GOVERNINGTHE INSTITUTIONS T-68/99 16May 2001 Toditec NV v Arbitration clause- Non- Commissionof the performance of contract - EuropeanCommunities Counterclaim T-204t99 12 July2001 Olli Mattila v Council Access to documents of the EuropeanUnion, Decisions 93l73LlEC and Commissionof the 94l90lECSC,EC, Euratom EuropeanCommunities Exception relating to the protectionof the public interest in the field of international relations Partial access 285 Subject-matter Cases 2 October2A0l Iean-ClaudeMartinez, Actions for annulment T-222t99, Charlesde Gaulle, Act of the European T-327199and Front National,Emma Parliament concerning a T-329/99 Bonino,Marco provisionof its Rules of Pannella,Marco Procedure -Statement of Cappato,Gianfranco formationof a groupunder Dell'Alba,Benedetto Rule 29 of the Rules of DellaVedova, Olivier Procedureof the European Dupuis,Maurizio P Pa ar rI Ii ia am me en nt t -- Turco, Lista Emma Admissibility- Objection Boninov European of illegality Equal Parliament treatment Observance of fundamentalrights Principles of democracy and proportionality Freedomof association- Protection of legitimate expectations Parliamentarytraditions of the Member States Breach of essential proceduralrequirements - Misuseof procedure T-111/00 10October 2001 BritishAmerican Decision 94lgO/ECSC, TobaccoInternational EC, Euratom Public (Investments)v access to Commission Commissionof the documents Minutes of EuropeanCommunities the Committeeon Excise Duties- Partialaccess - Exception Identities"of national delegations Proteetion of an institution'sinterest in the confidentiality of its proceedings 286286 Subjecrnratter T-19Lt99 11December 2001 David Petrie, Victoria Transparency Public Jane Primhak, David access to documents Verzoni, Associazione Commission Decision lettori di lingua 94/90/ECSC,EC, Euratom stranierain Italia - Proceedingsfbr failure incorporating to fulfil obligations Committee for the Formal notice - Reasoned Defenceof Foreign opinion Exception Lecturers relatingto protection of the (ALSIiCDFL) v public interest - Commissionof the Inspections and EuropeanCommunities investigations Court proceedings- Authorship rule Direct effect of Article 255 EC SOCIALPOLICY T-33U94U94 T-33 6 March2001 IPK-MünchenGmbH v Financial assistancefor an Commissionof the ecological tourism project EuropeanCommunities Interference by the Commission Delay in carrying out the project - Reductionof assistance STAFF REGULATTONSOF OFFICIALS Cases 16January 2001 Michael Chamier, Officials Grade A I T-97199and EoghanO'Hannrachain post - Article 29(2) of the T-99t99 v EuropeanParliament Staff Regulations Vacancy notice Manifest error of assessment Misuse of powers T-14t99 17January 2001 Marie-JeanneKraus v Officials Household Commissionof the allowance Refund of EuropeanCommunities sums paid but not due - Patent irregularity of payment 287287 Subject-matter T-r89t99 17January 2001 IoannisGerochristos v Competition Commissionof the COM/All2l98 Action EuropeanCommunities for annulment Preselection tests Retroactiveannulment of certain multiple choice questions Principleof equal treatment of candidates- DuU to state reasons T-65/00 AngelikiIoannou v Officials Refusal to Councilof the recru it Phys ica I EuropeanUnion unfitness- Opinionof the medical committee Judicial review Comprehensiblelink between the medical findingsand the conclusion of unfitness T-118t99 7 February2001 BeatriceBonaiti Officials Competition Brighinav Commission Rules on the use of of the European languages- Admissibility Communities Non-admissionto oral tests Access to documents T-183/98 8 February2001 Jean-FrangoisFerrandi Officials Transfer of v Commissionof the pension rights EuropeanCommunities Weighting of old-age pension Cover against risk of illness- Invalidity pension- Resjudicata T-ztmT-ztm 13 February2001 N v Commission of the Officials- Socialsecurity EuropeanCommunities Accidentinsurance Article 73 of the Staff Regulations- Conceptof accident - Infection by HIV T-166/00 13 February2A0I PeterHirschfeldt v Officials Internal EuropeanEnvironment competition- Annulment Agency - Transfer- Promotion Article 8 of the Staff Regulations 288 Subject-matter T-t44t00 22 February2AAl DanielaTirelli v Officials Passage to EuropeanParliament higher category Secretarial allowance Article 46 of the Staff Regulations Interinstitutional transfer - Inadmissibility Cases 23 February2001 Carlo De Nicola v EuropeanInvestment Bank T-7t98, European Investment Staff Action for T-208198and Bank annulment- Admissibility T-109/99 - Time-limit for bringing proceedings Merits Annual assessmentreport Promotion Comparative examination of merits Principle of equal treatment- Misuse of powers Moral harassment- Resignation Conditions of validity Form FormCapacityCapacity Refusal of administration to acceptwithdrawal of the resignation- Requestfor removal of documents from file Action for damages T -77T t99t99 -77 6 March2001 Girish Ojha v Officials Import of Commissionof the personalbelongings free of European Communities duty Action for compensation service- related fault Material and non-materialdamage T-192t99 6 March2001 Roderick Dunnett, Generalprinciple of labour Thomas Hackett, law common to the Mateo Turrö Calvet v Member States Bona EuropeanInvestment fide consultation of staff Bank representatives Abolition of a financial advantage 289289 Subject-nutter T-100/00 6 March2001 FrancoCampoli v Officials Commissionof the Transfer/Reassignment- EuropeanCommunities Reasons Misuse of powers - Interests of the service T-116/00 13March 2001 BentheHorbye-Möller Officials- Promotion v Commissionof the Examination of EuropeanCommunities comparative merits Action for annulment T-159/98 24 April 2001 Ivan Torre, Donatella Officials Competition Ineichen,Alessandro Irregularity in the Cavallaro,v conduct of the tests such as Commissionof the to distort the results EuropeanCommunities Locus standi T-37t99 24 April 2001 Ugo Mirandav Officials Resettlement Commissionof the allowance Meaning of EuropeanCommunities residence Cases 2 May 2001 CarlaGiulietti, Ana Officials Competitions T-167/99 and Caprile,Fabrizio - Actions for annulment T-r74t99 Dell'Olio,Konrad - Preselection procedure Fuhrmann,Olivier Conduct of tests Radeletv Commission Principle of equal of the European treatment- Obligation to Communities state reasons Principle of legitimate expectations Principle of good management Consequences for the subsequent conduct of the competition T-104/00 2 May 20Al GiovanniCubeta v Officials Posting to a Commissionof the new place of work EuropeanCommunities Installation allowance Daily subsistence Conditions for granting T-60/00 3 May 2001 ParaskeviLiaskou v Officials - Remuneration Councilof the - Expatriation allowance EuropeanUnion Article a(lXa) of Annex AnnexVII VII to tothe theStaffStaff Regulations 290 Subject-matter T-99/00 3 May 2001 Ignacio Samperv Officials - Drawing-up of EuropeanParliament career record Examination of the comparative merits Criteria Principle of equal treatment T-182t99 8 May 2001 GeorgesCaravelis v Officials Refusal of EuropeanParliament promotion Consideration of comparative merits Action for annulment and compensation T-348/00 30 May 2001 Artin Barth v Officals Household Commissionof the allowance- Recovery of EuropeanCommunities sum not due T-nat99 14June 2001 Hans McAuley v Officials Appointment Council of the by way of promotion EuropeanUnion Annulment - Comparative examination of merits - Manifest error of assessement T-243t99 20 June2001 Marie-Laurence Officials Open Buissonv Commission competition Refusal to of the European admit to the written tests Communities Admissibility Act adversely affecting a candidate- Time-limit - Legitimate expectation Compensation Cases 27 lune 2001 Alain Leroy, Decision L999l307lEC T-164t99, Yannick Chevalier- Integration of the Schengen T-37i00and Delanoue, Secretariatinto the General T-38/00 Virginia Joaquim Secretariat of the Council Matos v Council of the * Action for annulment EuropeanUnion T-r66t99 27 June2001 Luis Fernando Andres Decision L999l307lEC de Dios, Maria Integrationof the Schengen SoledadGarcia Secretariatinto the General Retortillo, Suzanne Secretariatof the Council Kitlas, JacquesVerraes Action for annulment v Council of the - Admissibility EuropeanUnion 29r Subject-maner T-214/00 2l lune 2001 X v Commissionof the Officials Official EuropeanCommunities orderedto pay the costsof a previous case Creditor institution withholding remuneration by way of set-off Cases 3 July2001 E v Commissionof the Officials Temporary T-24198and EuropeanCommunities agent- Disciplinaryrules T-24V99 Suspension Disciplinary measure Termination of contract without notice Period set by the third paragraph of Article 7 of Annex IX to the StaffRegulations - Disregarded Consequences Action for annulment and compensation- No need to adjudicate T-131/00 12July 2001 RobertCharles Officials Promotion Schochaertv Council denied Statement of of the EuropeanUnion reasons- Examinationof comparative merits Action for annulment T-35r/99r/99 T-35 20 July 2001 ChristianBrumter v Officials Notice of Commissionof the vacancy Appointment EuropeanCommunities - Duty to providereasons Examination of the candidates' comparative merits Discretion enjoyedby the appointing authority- Staffreport - Requestfor transfer T-r60t99T-r60t9913 September2001 GunnarSvantesson, Officials Internal LenaHellsten, Monica competition Häggv Council Composition of the selectionboard 292292 Subject-maner T-152100 19 September2001 E v Commission of the Officials Rejection of EuropeanCommunities candidature Infringement of the terms of a vacancy notice Manifest errors of assessment Discrimination Misuse of powers T-171/00 20 September2001 PeterSpruyt v Officials - Cover for risk Commissionof the of accident and EuropeanCommunities occupational disease Eligibility for the benefits provided for by Article 73 of the Staff Regulations- Hang-gliding accident T-95/01 20 September2001 G6rald Coget, Officials Post of Pierre Huge, Secretary General - Emmanuel Gabolde v Invitation to submit Court of Auditors of candidatures- High-level the European experience- Institution's Communities broad discretion- Calling for interview T-344t99 20 September2001 Lucia Recalde Officials Expatriation Langarica v allowance Article Commissionof the a( l Xa) of the Staff European Communities Regulations- Article 26 of the Staff Regulations- The principl e audi alteram partem T-333/99 18October 2001 X v European Central Officials - Servantsof the Bank European Central Bank - Jurisdictionof the Court of First Instance - Legality of conditions of employment Rights of the defence Dismissal - Harassment- Misuse of the internet 293 Subject-matter T-r42t00T-r42t0015 November20Al Michel Van Huffel v Officials Access to Commission of the internal competitions European Communities Contracts with undertakings- Notice of competition Condition for admission requiring applicantsto be members of the regularstaff T-349/W 15November 2001 Giorgio Lebedef v Officials Framework Commissionof the agreement concluded European Communities betweenthe Commission and the trade union and staff associationsin 1974 - Revisionor amendment - Consultationprocedure Introduction of new rules- Admissibility T-r94t99 15 November2001 CristianoSebastiani v Officials- Promotion- Commissionof the Staff report None EuropeanCommunities Consideration of comparativemerits T-125100 4 December2001 JoaquinL6pez Officials Transfer of Madrugav part of renumeration in Commissionof the currency of a Member EuropeanCommunities State other than the country of the seat of the institution Article I7(2)(a)and O) of Annex VIII to the Sta f f Regulations Combined application STATEAID T-73/98 15March 2001 Soci6töchimique State aid Failure to Prayon-Rupel SA v open the procedureunder Commission of the Arricle 93(2) of rhe EC EuropeanCommunities Treaty (now Article 88(2) EC) - Seriousdifficulty 294 Subjecrmatter T-69t96 71 March2001 Hamburger Hafen- und State aid Aid for Lagerhaus investmentin equipmentin Aktiengesellschaft, the combined transport Zentralverband der sector- Article 93 of the Deutschen EC Treaty (now Article 88 SeehafenbetriebeeV, EC) Action for Unternehmensverband annulment- Admissibility Hafen Hamburg v Commission of the EuropeanCommunities T-288t97 4 April 2001 Regioneautonoma Carriage of goods by road Friuli-V eneziaGiulia v - Stateaid - Action for Commissionof the annulment Effect on EuropeanCommunities trade between Member States and distortion of competition - conditions for derogation from the prohibition laid down by Article 92(I) of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 87(1) EC) New aid 0r existingaid - Principleof protection of legitimate expectations Principle of proportionality Statementof reasons T-187t99 7 June2001 Agrana Zucker und Action for annulment Stärke AG v state aid Aid Commissionof the incompatible with the EuropeanCommunities conlmon market - Time- limit for investigation Act of Accession Declaration No 31 Statementof reasons 295 CaseCase Date Parties Subject-matter T-9/98 22 November2001 Mitteldeutsche Erdoel- State aid - Extension of Raffinerie GmbH v the period for completion Commission of the of investment projects European Communities qualifying for a premium - General aid scheme- Action for annulment Admissibility Act of direct and individual concern to the applicant - Interest in bringing proceedings - Additional aid Investment aid or operating aid - Principle of proportionality 296 2, synopsis of the other decisionsof the court of First Instance which appearedin the .Proceedings'in 2001 Case Dare Parties Subject-mater T-53/01R 28 Mav 2001 Poste Italiane SpA v Proceedings for interim Commission of the relief Article 86 EC, European read in conjunction with Communities Article 82 EC Article 86(2) EC - Postal services Urgency Balancing of interests T-151.t}lR 15 November 20Al Der GrünePunkt - Proceedings for interim DualesSystem relief - Abuse of dominant DeutschlandAG v position Article 82 EC Commissionof the Trade mark Prima European facie case Urgency Communities Balancingof interests 297 3. Statisticsof judicial activity of the Court of First Instance Summaryof the activity of the Court of First Instance Table 1: Generalactivity of the Court of First Instancein 1999, 2000 and 2001 Table la: Generalactivity of the Court of First Instancein L999,2004 and 2001 New casescasesNew Table 2: Natureof proceedings Table3: Type of action Table4: Basisof the action Table 5: Subject-matterof the action Casesdealt Cases withwithdealt Table 6: Natureof proceedings Table7: Resultsof cases Table8: Basisof the action Table 9: Subject-matterof the action Table 10: Benchhearing case Table 11: Lengthof proceedings Figure I: Lengthof proceedingsin staff cases(udgments and orders) Figure II: Lengthof proceedingsin otheractions (udgments and orders) Casespendingpending Cases Table 12: Natureof proceedings Table 13: Basisof the action Table 14: Subject-matterof the action 299 MiscellaneousMiscellaneous Table 15: Generaltrend Table 16: Resultsof appeals(udgments and orders) Table 17: Decisionsin proceedingsfor interim measures:outcome 300 Summaryof the activityof the Courtof FirstInstance Table 1: General activity of the Court of First Instance in 1999,2000 and 2001' r999 20402040 zAAlzAAl New cases 313 (384) 336 (3e8) 34s (345) Casesdealt with 267 (65e) 318 (344) 275 (340) Casespending 501 (732) 5le (786) 589 (7e2) Table la: General activity of the Court of First Instance in L999, 2000 and 200t 200tzz 1,999 2000 2A0r2A0r New cases (384) (3e8) (34s) Casesdealt with 322 (65e) 258 (344) 230 (340) Casespending 663 (732) 66r (786) 68s {7e2) ' In this table,the figuresin bracketsinclude large groups of identicalor connectedcases (milk quotas,customs agents, service-stations, aid in the regionof Venice,regrading). 2 In this rableand thoseon the following pages,the figures in bracketsrepresent the total numberof cases,without account being taken of thejoinder of cases;for the figureswithout brackets,each series of ioinedcases is countedas one case. 301 It{ewcosescoses It{ew Table 2: Nature of proceedings | 2 Natureof proceedings t999 2000 20012001 Other actions 254 242242 180 Intellectual property 18 34 37 Staff cases 84 111 ll0 Special forms of procedure 28 1l 18 Total 384 3 3gg 4 345 'other 'other The entryThe entry actions' inactions' inthis tablethis and.tlgsetable onand.tlgse theon followingthe pagesfollowingrefers pages torefers allto allactionsactions broughtby naruralor fegalpersons other thanacJionsbrought by officialsof the European Communitiesand intellectualproperty cases, ..,",. The followingThe arefollowing consideredare to considered tobe 'specialbe forms'special offorms ofprooedure' (in prooedure' (inthis andthis the and followingfollowingthe tables): applicationstables): to applications setto aset judgmenta aside judgment(Article aside 38(Article of38 theof .ECtheStatute; .EC ArticleStatute; Article122 of122 ofthethe Rulesof Rules Procedureof of Procedure ofthe Courtthe ofCourt ofFirst Instance);First third Instance); partythird proceedingsparty (Article proceedings (Article39 of39 ofthethe EC Statute;EC ArtialeStatute; 123Artiale of 123 theof Rulesthe of Rules ofProcedure); revision Procedure); ofrevision ofa judgment a (Article judgment 4l(Article 4l of thetheof EC Statute;EC Article Statute; Article125 of125 ofttre Rulesttre ofRules ofProcedure); interpretation Procedure);of interpretation ofa judgment a (Articlejudgment (Article4040 of ofthe ECthe Statute;EC Article Statute; Article129 of 129 ofthe Rulesthe of Rules Procedure);of taxation Procedure);of taxation ofcosts (Article costs 92(Article of92 ofthethe Rules of Procedure);legal aid (Article 94 of the Rulesof Procedure);'rectificationof a judgment(Article judgment (Article84 of84 ofthe Rulesthe of Rules ofProcedure).Procedure). Of Ofwhich 7lwhich 7lcases concerned cases State concernedaid State inaid thein Netherlandsthe relating Netherlands torelating service-stations.service-stations.to Of Ofwhich 3which 3cases concemed cases State concemedaid State inaid in the Netherlandsthe relating Netherlands torelating toservice-stations and service-stations 5959and concemedState concemedaid State inaid thein regionthe ofregion ofVenice.Venice. 302302 Table 3: Type of action Type of action 1999 2000 20011 200 Action for annulment 220220 220220 r34 Action for failure to act t5 66 T7 Action for damages 19 L7 2L Arbitration clause II 88 Intellectual property 18 34 37 Staff cases 83 110 110 ' Total 'l..387.'.a 377 ," :: Special forms of procedure Legal aid 77 66 99 Taxation of costs 66 33 88 Application to set a judgment aside II Rectification of a judgment 15 II Revisionof a judgment II Total 28.'.., t.l OVERALL TOTAL 384 398 345 t Of which 71 casesconcerned State aid in the Netherlandsrelating to service-sktions. 2 Of which 3 casesconcemed State aid in the Netherlandsrelating to service-stationsand 59 concemedState aid in the resionof Venice. 303 Table4: Basisof the action Basis of the action 19991999 2000 2001 Article 63 of Regulation(EC) No 40/94 18 34 37 ' Article 230 EC 215 219 132132 Article 232 EC l4 66 l5 Article 235 EC t7 L7 2T Article 238 EC 11 II Total EC Treaty Article 33 of the CS Treary 55 II 22 Article 35 of the CS Treary II 22 Article 40 of the CS Treary II Total CS Treaty 7i7i II Article 151of the EA Treary II Toal EA Treaty II Staff Regulations 83 110 110 Total Article 84 of the Rulesof Procedure 15 11 Anicle 92 of the Rulesof Procedure 66 33 88 Article 94 of the Rulesof Procedure 77 66 99 Article L22of the Rulesof Procedure 11 Article 125of the Rulesof Procedure II Total specialforms of procedure l:I OVERALL TOTAL 384 398 345 I I Follo*ing Follo*ingthe renumberingthe of renumbering articlesof by articles theby Treatythe ofTreaty Amsterdam,of the Amsterdam, methodthe of method ofcitation ofofcitation Treaty articlesTreaty has articlesbeen has substantially been modified substantially sincemodified Isince IMay May1999.1999. 304 Table 5: Subject-matter of the action I Subject-matter of the action r999 20002000 2A0r2A0r Agriculture 42 23 l7 Approximationof laws )) Arbitration clause 22 Associationof the OverseasCountries and Temitories 44 ;; 66 Commercialpolicy 55 88 44 Common CustomsTariff 22 Company law 22 44 66 Competition 34 36 39 Culture 22 II CustomsUnion 22 Energy 22 Environment and consumers 55 ;; 22 Europeancitizenship 22 External relations 11 88 T4 Fisheriespolicy 66 Foreign and securiry policy 22 11 33 Free movementof goods 10 t7 11 Freedomto provide services II Freedomof establishment 11 Freedomof movementfor persons 22 ;; 33 Intellectualproperty 18 34 37 Justiceand home affairs II Law governing the institutions t9 29 12 Regionalpolicy 22 11 Research,information, education and statistics 11 ;; 33 Socialpolicy l2 77 11 Staff Regulations II State aid 100 80 42 Transport 22 zz Total EC Treaty Competition Iron and steel II 22 State aid 66 .|'.|' 22 Total CS Treaty 7' TT Law governing the institutions II Total EA Treaty ,1,,,.,1,,,. Staff Regulations 86 106 110 t. OVERALL TOTAL ;",r;,,,t,,tt;;iLfl. t Special forms of procedure are not taken into account in this table. 305 Casesdealt with Table 6: Nature of proceedings I Nature of proceedings r999r999 20002000 200r200r 3 4 Other actions 227 (54q 2 t36 QrD ltz (t6D Intellectual property 2A) 7 (7) 2e (30) 5 Staff cases 7e (88) e8 (l0l) 75 (133) Specialforms of procedure 14 (2s) 17 (17) 14 (l s) Total 322 (65e) 2s8 (344) 230 (340) ' ' In Inthis tablethis andtable thoseand on those theon followingthe pages,followingthe pages, figuresthe infigures bracketsin represent bracketsthe represent totalthe numbernumbertotal of ofcases, without cases, accountwithout being account takenbeing of taken ofthe joinder the ofjoinder ofcases; for cases; forthe figuresthe withoutfigures brackets,brackets,without eachseries each ofjoined series ofjoinedcasesis cases countedis as counted oneas case.case.one 2 2 Of Ofwhich 102which were102 milkwere milkquota casesquotaand cases 284and concemed 284 customs concemedagents.agents. customs ' ' Of Ofwhich 8which were8 milkwere milkquotia cases quotiaand cases 13and concerned 13 customs concernedagents.agents. customs o of which 14 weremilk quotacases. 5 5 Of whichOf 51which concemed51 the concemed regradingthe of regrading ofofficiats on officiats theiron appoinünent.appoinünent.their 306 Table 7: Results of cases Intellectual Special forms of Result of case Other actions Staff cases Total propeny procedure Judgments Action inadmissible 5 (2r) I (1) 6 (27) Action unfounded 28 (34) 13 (14) re (22) 60 (70) Action partially e (10) 66 (6) 8 (12) 23 (28) founded Action founded 1,3 Q7) 55 (5) 99 (e) 27 (41) No need to give a II (1) 11 (1) decision Total judgments 3.8.3.8. rt7 (162) Orders Removal from the 20 (31) 3 (3) l9 (6e) 42 (103) register Action inadmissible 19 (2r) 1 (1) 11 (11) 31 (33) No need to give a 55 (5) I (1) 33 (3) 99 (e) decision Action founded Action partially 5 (6) s (6) founded Action unfounded 55 (s) II (1) e (e) 1s (15) Action manifestly 22 (2) 33 (4) 5 (6) unfounded Disclaimerof jurisdiction Lack of jurisdiction 66 (6) 66 (6) '':: - r'i\' Total orders ) (J)" \4 1i.li3 Total rrz (162) 75 (133) 2e (30) 14 (15) 230 (340) 347 Table 8: Basis of the action Basis of the action Judgments Orders Total Article 63 of Regulation(EC) 24 Qs) 55 (s) 2929 (30) No 40/94 Article 230 EC 4T (43) 80 (l 17) Article 232 EC :2 77 Q) 77 : (7) Article 235 EC 7 (7) 88 ,:,,:, 15 Q6) Article 238 EC 1 (1) 11 (1) Total EC Treaty Article 33 of the CS Treaty 77 (e) 77 (e) Article 40 of the CS Treaty II (1) II (l) Total CS Treatv -r.'..'...,,,.'....F Article l5l of the EA Treaty II (1) 11 (1) Total EA Treaw T:T: Staff Regulations 38 (4s) 37 (88) 7s (133) Total Article 92 of the Rulesof Procedure 55 (6) 55 (6) Article 94 of the Rulesof Procedure 99 (e) 99 (e) Total specialforms of procedure L4L4 (1s) T4T4 (1s) OVERALL TOTAL rL7 (162) 113 (178) na (340) 308 Table 9: Subject-matter of the action I Subject-matter of the action Judgments Orders Total Agriculture 10 (26) ,? T9T9 (47) Associationof the Overseas 22 (2) 22 a) Countriesand Territories Commercialpolicy 33 (3) 77 (2) 55 (s) Common CustomsTariff II (2) 11 (1) 22 (3) Company law 44 (4) 44 (4) Competition t2 (1s) 77 (7) L9 (22) Customs Union 22 (1s) 22 (15) European citizenship II (1) 11 (1) External relations II (1) II (1) 22 (2) Fisheriespolicy 44 (4) 22 (3) 66 (7) Foreign and security policy 33 (3) 33 (3) Freedom of movement for persons 22 (2) 22 (2) Freedomof establishment 44 (4) 44 (4) Intellectual property 24 ä,ä, 55 (5) 29 (30) Law governing the institutions 55 (7) T2 (r2) I7 (1e) Social policy 11 (1) 11 (1) 22 (2) Staff Regulations 11 (1) 11 (1) State aid 44 (4) 77 (7) 1t (11) Total EC Treaty ;';':6.tr':;';':6.tr':,l,3,1,,l,3,1, Competition 5 (6) s (6) Iron and steel 1 (1) 1 (1) State aid 2 (3) 2 (3) Toral CS Treaty ,,.,,,8,,,8, ,,., ,g,g (.1.O; Law governing the institutions 11 (1) 11 (1) Total EA Treaty (iI:) Staff Regulations 39 (46) 37 (881 76 (134) OVERALL TOTAL tt7 (162) 99 (r63) 216 (32s) t Special forms of procedure are not taken into account in this table. 309 Table 10: Bench hearing case(iudgrnents and orders) Bench hearing case Total Chambers(3 judges) 280 Chambers(5 judges) 42 Singlejudge L2 Casesnot assigned 66 340 Table 11: Length of proceedings' (iudgmentsand orders) Judgments/Orders Otheractions 20.7 Intellectualproperty L6.4 Staffcases 18.7 In this table, the length of proceedingsis expressedin months and tenths of months. 310 FigureI: Length of proceedingsin staff cases(iudgments and orders) u,u, oo v,v, 66()() oo ooLL 00 EE 33 cc 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24>24 months 311 Figure II:Figure II:Length Lengthof ofproceedings in proceedings inother otheractions (udgmentsactions (udgmentsand andorders)orders) 60 55 50 4545 oo && oo oo (U(U oo 35 $-$- oo 30 ooL.L. tltl 25 EE ff cc 20 15 10 55 00 <5 5 6 7 I 9 101112131415161718192021222324>24 months 'CäSeSl',,:<5 5, 66 77 :8 :1.:1.,I0' XtiXtit2 [3 :lA;. ,15 t6 xl risris19i 20i,i:2;t2;t2222ul.ul.,24,24>2i! :.:':.:.1 .:..:. :Möüth$:Möüth$ ':.1.:.: Other 19 77 L2L266 33 33 00 33 44 22 22 44 00 22 44 II 22 44 77 22 17 57 actions 312 Casespending (as at 3I Decembereach year) Table L2: Nature of proceedings Nature of proceedings 1999 2000 20012001 Other actions 47r (538)' 445 (561)2 485 (579)3 Intellectual property 17 (17) 44 (44) sl (51) Staff cases 167 (16e) 1,70 (r79) 143 (156) Specialforms of procedure 8 (8) z (2) 6 (6) Total 663 (732) 661 (786) 68s (7e2) Of which88 weremilk quotacases, 13 were cases concerning custonrs agents and 7l werecases concerningservice-stations. Of which 80 were milk quota cases,74 were casesconceming Stat€ aid in the Netherlands relatingto service-stationsand 59 werecases conceming State aid in the regionof Venice. Of Ofwhich 67which 67were milkwere milk quota cases,quota 74 cases, 74were caseswere conceming cases State conceming aidState aidin inthe theNetherlandsNetherlands relatingto service-stationsand 59 werecases concerning State aid in the regionof Venice. 313 Table 13: Basis of the action Basis of the action 1999 2000 2001 Article 63 of Regulation(EC) 17 (17) 44 (44> 51 (s1) No 40/94 Article 230 EC 360 (383) 360 (436) 385 (4s1) Article 232 EC L4 (14) 44 (4) L2 (r2) Article 235 EC 80 (123) 68 (107) 74 (102) Article 238 EC 11 (2) 11 (1) 8 (8) Total EC Treaty Article 33 of the CS Treaty L4 (14) 12 (13) 6 (6) Anicle 35 of the CS Treaty 11 (1) Article 40 of the CS Treaty 11 (1) I (1) ::, Total CS Treaty 1ä.ii:l Article 151 of the EA Treaty II (1) 11 (1) Total EA Treaty l,:...,'..:,.,.,:,.:''.,...(lt) Staff Regulations r66 (168) 168 (177) L4LL4L(r54) Total Article 84 of the Rulesof Procedure 2 (2) Article 92 of the Rulesof Procedure s (s) 33 o, Article 94 of the Rulesof Procedure 11 (1) 11 (1) Article L22of the Rulesof Procedure i:' II (1) II (1) Article 125of the Rulesof Procedure II (1) Total specialforms of procedure OVERALL TOTAL 663663 (732) 661 (786) 685 (7e2) 314 Table L4: Subject-matter of the action Subject-matterof the action r999 2000 2AAr2AAr Agriculture 86 (140) 89 (144) 83 (114) Approximation of laws 2 (2) Arbitration clause 11 Q) 2A) Associationof the OverseasCountries 66 (6) 1l (11) 15 (1s) and Territories Commercialpolicy 24 (2s) 16 (16) 15 (15) Common CustomsTariff 2 (2) 2 (3) 2 (2) Company law 4 (4) 4 (4) 6 (6) Competition t:i (104) 74 (7e) e2 (e6) Culture 2A) 3 (3) CustomsUnion o:'l2A (33) 20 (20) Energy : II 7 (7) Environment and consumers ls (15) 10 (17) Europeancitizenship i:'l I (1) External relations 7 (7) IIe (e) 2r (2r) | Fisheriespolicy 4 (4)l 8 (8) 7 (7) Foreign and security policy 2 (2) | 3 (3) 3 (3) Free movementof goods 2Q) 3 (3) Freedomof movementfor persons I (1) Freeedom of establishment ;; 5 (5) 2 (2) Intellectual property 17 (17) 44 (44) 51 (51) Justice and home affairs I (1) Law governing the institutions 33 (34) 27 (27) 18 QA) Regionalpolicy 4 (5) 1 (1) Research,information, educationand I (l) II (1) 4 (4) statistics Social policy 15 (15) 4 (4) 3 (3) Staff Regulations 2Q) 2 (2) State aid rr4 (131) 135 (176) s7 QA7) Transport 3 (3) I (t) 3 (3) Total EC Treaty '5?9..,, :,.,.,.,;,, (62ß) Competition 6 (6) 66 (6) Iron and steel I (1) II (1) 22 (2) State aid e (e) 66 (7) 66 (6) Total CS Treaty 13.13..r('I4), (8,),.,',', Law governing the institutions II (r) II (1) Total EA Treaty II (1) II Staff Regulations r6e (171) r70 (L7e) r42 (1s5) Total (786) 315 Miscellaneous Table 15: Generaltrend Numberof decisionsof the Courtof First New Casespending as Judgments Year Casesdecided Instancewhich I delivered 2 cases at 31 December havebeen the subjectof an appeal3 I 989 r69 164 (168) I (1) 1990 59 1,23 (145) 7e (82) se (61) T6T6 (46)(46) 1991 95 rsz (r73) 64 (67) 4r (43) t3 (62)(62) r992r992 r23r23 rsz (171) 104 (125) 60 (77) 24 (86) 19931993 596 638 (661) es (106) 47 (s4) 16 (66)(66) t994 409409 432 (628) 4r2 (442) 60 (70) t2 u0s) 1995 253253 427 (616) re7 Q6s) e8 (128) 47 (r42) r996 229 476 (65e) r72 (186) r07 (118) 27 (r3s) r997r997 644644 640 (1117) r79 (186) e5 (ee) 35 (r3e) 1998 238 s6e (1007) 27e (348) 130 (1s1) 67 (2r4) r999 384 663 (732) 322 (6se) I ls (150) 60 (r77) 2000 398 66r (786) 2s8 (344) LL7 (1e1) 69 (2r7) 2001 34s 685 (7e2) 230 (340) r20 (162) 69 (2r3)3) (2r Total 3942 23e2 (3151) r04e (1304) 4ss (1600) t loduding specialforms ofprocedure. 2 2 The figuresThe infigures bracketsin indicate bracketsthe indicate numberthe of number ofcases decided cases by decided judgment.judgment.by ' ' Th" Th"italicised figures italicised infigures bracketsin indicate bracketsthe indicate totalthe numbertotal of number decisionsof which decisions couldwhich havecould been have thethe been subject ofsubject ofa achallenge - challenge- judgments, and judgments, ordersand relatingorders torelating toadmissibility, concerningadmissibility,interiminterim concerning measures,declaring measures,that declaring itthat itis notis necessarynot to necessary proceedto to proceed judgmentto or judgment orrefusing leave refusingto leave interveneinterveneto - - in respectin ofwhich respect ofwhichthe deadlinethe for deadline bringingfor anbringing appealan expired appealor expired againstor which against anwhich appealan waswas appeal brought. 4 4 This figureThis doesfigurenot does includenot the include appealthe brought appealagainst broughtthe against orderthe oforder inquiryof ofinquiry of14 September14 19991999 September in CaseT-145/98. This appealwas declaredinadmissible by the Court sincethe challenged decisionwas decision notwas opennot to open appeal.appeal.to 316 Table L6: Resultsof appeals(iudgments and orders) 'o'o .c,.c,C)C) !!(u(u .lt.lt -bB oo aa oo >\>\ >\ä. GIGI EEEE oo €€ oo €€ 'o'o .Ee 8E tr.x Gl Gl55 q-5 Eg .EH JJ -ä-ä E* qrJ EEEE .ä.o 'lt' GI GIU'U' F,o ((t((t (A(A cl€ oo FF ee EF '5äE '5 €E r!) ß:ß: aataaaraaaa consumers laaraaaaata rorrr:.o;*r.....'...a...rr.rrrr.'lfrrro.r:rrrrr{rr..orr{rro.r.....a...r....'.'.}...'.....1...... {...... rrrr$rrrrrr..{.....o.,.... Fisheriespolicy Freedomof establishment Intellectualproperty Lawsgoverning the institutions o-.r-rr{rr...... j...... ;...... i...... *:...... i...... i..'.....j..,'...... ;...... '.i...... ;...... ,..... Regionalpolicy : -: 1 : - l-i - i - :-: - i - : - i 1 '...... f.rrrrror.{rrrr...r.ra}rrr...r.....{.o.r..e{rrr.r.....{..,...... +...... 1.....r'.r.{...... r..i|,...... {...... Socialpolicy : - i 8 : I :-: -: - : -: -: - : - i 9 rer.r..rr{or.ro.r.r.{r..reo...r{rrr..r...... t.....r.{...... r.rr{orerr..rr..+...... !.{.r,...... *...... +...... {...... ' StaffRegulations 7 i 4 : I : 3 :-: - i 2 :-: -: - :- i 17 Stateaid 70 317 Tabte 17: Decisions in proceedings for interim measures: I outcome Numberof outcome Subject-matterof the action applicationsfor interim measures Refused Granted Agriculture 66 00 Associationof the Overseas 11 00 Countriesand Territories Commercialpolicy 11 Competition 11 Energy 00 Environmentand consumers 00 Freedomof establishment 00 Law governingthe institutions 11 Stateaid 00 Total EC Treaty Staff Regulations 77 77 00 OVERALL TOTAL 39 36 33 Applicationsfor Applications forinterim measuresinterim brought measuresto brought ato conclusiona by conclusion runovalby runovalfrom thefrom registerthe are register notnotare countedin this table. 318 Chapter V GeneralInformütion A Publicationsand databases Textsof Judgmentsand Opinions 1. Reports of cases before the court of Justice and the court of First Instance The Reportsof Casesbefore the Court are publishedin the official Community languages,and are the only authenticsource for citationsof decisionsof the Couit of Justiceor of the Court of First Instance. The final volumeof the year'sReports contains a chronologicaltable of the cases published,a tableof casesclassified in numericalorder, an alphabeticalindex of parties, a table of the community legislationcited, an alphabeticalindex of subject-matterand, from 1991, a new systematictable containingall of the summaries,with theircorresponding chains of head-words,for thecases reported. In Inthe Memberthe States Memberand States inand incertain non-membercertain countries, non-memberthe countries, Reportsthe areare Reports on saleon atsale atthe addressesthe shown addresses onshown theon lastthe pagelast ofpage ofthis pablicationthis pablication@rice@rice of the 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 Reporrs:EUR 170 excluding VAT).excluding VAT).In Inother counties,other counties,orders shoutdorders likewiseshoutd belikewise addressedaddressedbe to tothe salesthe ffices sales ffices referred to.referred to.For furtherFor furtherinformation please information contactplease thethecontact Interior InteriorDivision Divisionof ofthe thecourt courtof ofJustice, pubricationsJustice, section,pubrications L-2925L-2925section, Luxembourg. 2, Reportsof EuropeanCommunity Staff Cases From 1994the Reportsof Europeancommunity staff cases(ECR-sc) contain all the judgmentsof the Court of First Instancein staff casesin the languageof the case together with an abstractin one of the official languages,at the subscriber'schoice. It alsocontains summaries of thejudgments delivered by the court of Justiceon appealsin this area,the full text of which, however,continues to be publishedin the generalReports. Accessto the Reportsof European CommunityStaff Casesis facilitatedby an indexwhich is alsoavailable in ali the languages. 32r32r In Inthe Memberthe States Memberand States inand incertain non-membercertain countries, non-memberthe countries, Reportsthe areare Reports on saleat the addressesshown on the last page of this publication (price: EUR EUR70, excluding70, VAT).excluding VAT).In Inother countries,other orderscountries, shouldorders beshould addressedaddressedbe to the Wcefor fficial Publicationsof theEuropean Communities, L-2985 Luxembourg. ForLuxembourg. funherFor funherinformntion pleaseinformntion contactplease thecontact Interiorthe InteriorDivisionDivision of ofthe Courtthe ofCourt Justice,of PublicationsJustice, Section,PublicationsL-2925 Section, Ltnembourg.Ltnembourg.L-2925 The Thecost costof ofsubscrtpfion subscrtpfionto tothe thetuo tuo abovementioned publications abovementioned publicationsisis EUR EUR205, 205,excluding VAT.excluding VAT.For Forfurther furtherinformation pleaseinformation pleasecontact contactthethe Intertor IntertorDivision ofDivision ofthe theCourt Courtof ofJustice, PublicationsJustice, Section,Publications L-2925L-2925Section, Luxembourg. 3. 3. Judgments ofJudgments ofthe theCourt Courtof ofJustice andJustice theand Courtthe Courtof ofFirst FirstInstance andandInstance Opinions ofOpinions ofthe theAdvocates GeneralGeneralAdvocates Ordersfor offsetcopies, subject to availabitity,rnay be madein writing, stating the languagedesired, to the lnterior Division of the Court of Justice of the EuropeanCommunities, L-2925 Luxembourg, on paymentof a fixed chargefor eachdocument, at presentEUR 14.87 excludingVAT but subjectto alteration' Orderswill no longerbe acceptedonce the issueof the Reportsof Casesbefore the Court containingthe requiredjudgment or Opinion hasbeen published. Subscribersto Subscribers tothe Reponsthe nayRepons naypay apay asubscription to subscription toreceive ffiAreceive ffiAcopiescopies in one or more of the official Commwirylnnguages of the tuts contained in inthe Reponsthe ofRepons ofCases before Cases thebefore Courtthe ofCourt Justiceof andJustice theand Courtthe ofCourt ofFirstFirst Instance, withInstance, withthe eJcceptionthe of eJcceptionofthe tütsthe tütsappearing onlyappearing onlyin inthe Reporfsthe ofofReporfs EuropeanCommuniry StaffCases. The annunl subscriptionfee is at present EUR 327.22, ucluding VAT. Pleasenote that all the recentjudgments of the Court of Justiceand of the Court of First Instanceare accessiblequickly and free of chargeon the Court's internet 'Case-law'. site(www.curia.eu.int, see also 2.(d) below) under Judgmentsare availableonthe site, in all 11 official languages,fromapproximately 3 p'm. on the day they are delivered. Opinionsof the AdvocatesGeneral are alsoavailable on that site, in the languageof the AdvocateGeneral as well as, initially, in the languageof the case. 322322 Otherpublications 1. Documentsfrom the Registryof the Court of Justice (a) SelectedInstruments relating to the Organisation, Jurisdiction and Procedureof the Court This work containsthe main provisionsconcerning the Court of Justiceand the court of First Instanceto be found in the Treaties,in secondarylaw and in a numberof conventions.consultation is facilitatedby an index. The The selectedInstruments selected are Instruments areavailable inavailable inail ailthe fficialthe fficiallanguages. languages.TheThe 1999 edition1999 mayedition bemay obtainedbe from obtained fromthe addressesthe given addresses ongiven theon thelait pagelait ofofpage this publication. Alt the texts are also published on the internet at http: / http :// curia. / eu. curia.int eu. /int en/txts / /acting en/txts/index. /acting htm.htm. /index. (b) List of the sittingsof the Court The list of public sittings is drawn up each week. Ir may be altered and is thereforefor informationonly. Lists mayLists be may obtainedbe on obtained requeston from request fromthe Interior the DivisionInterior ofDivision theof Courtthe ofofCourt Justice, PublicationsJustice, Section, PublicationsL-2925 Section, Lwrembourg.Lwrembourg.L-2925 2. Publicationsfrom the Pressand Information Division of the Court of JusticeJustice (a) Proceedingsof the Court of Justiceand of the Court of First Instanceof the EuropeanCommunities weekly information,sent to subscribers,on thejudicial proceedingsof the court of Justice and the court of First Instance,containing a short summary of judgments, brief noteson opinions deliveredby the AdväcatesGeneral and new casesbrought in the previousweek. It also recordsthe more importantevents happeningin the daily life of the institution. The last edition of the year containsstatistical information and a tableanalysing thejudgments and other decisions delivered by the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instanceduring the year. 323 The Proceedingsare also publishedevery week on the Court's internetsite. (b) (b)Annual ReportReportAnnual A publicationproviding a synopsisof the work of the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance,both in their judicial capacityand with regard to their otheractivities (meetings and studycourses for membersof thejudiciary, visits, seminarsand so forth). It containsdetailed analyses of the mostnoteworthy case- law lawin inthe yearthe yeargone bygone byof ofboth boththe theCourt Courtof ofJustice andJustice theand the Court Courtof ofFirstFirst Instance,wiitten üy their Presidents.It alsocontains much statistical information and theand completethe annualcomplete tablesannual oftables ofthe case-law the ofcase-law ofthe Courtthe Courtof ofJustice andJustice thetheand Court of First Instance. (c) Diary A multilingualweekly list of the judicial activity of the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance,announcing the hearingsand delivery of Opinions and judgmentstaking placein the week in question;it alsogives an overview of the suUsequentweek. Thereis a brief descriptionof the subject-matterof eachcase. The diary is publishedevery Thursdayand is availableon the Court's internet site. Ordersfor Orders forthe documentsthe referred documents toreferred above,to availableabove, free available freeof ofcharge incharge inallall the officiatthe officiatlanguages of languages ofthe Communities,the mu,st Communities,be mu,st sent,be insent, inwriting, writing,to tothethe presi presiand andInformation InformationDivision Divisionof ofthe theCourt Courtof ofJustice, Justice,L-2925L-2925 hnembourg, hnembourg,stating thestating langwgethe langwgerequired.required. (d) (d)lnternet sitelnternet ofsite ofthe Courtthe ofCourt ofJusticeJustice The Court's site, locatedat www.curia.eu.int, offerseasy access to a wide range of ofinformation informationand anddocuments concerningdocuments theconcerning theinstitution. institution.Most Mostof ofthesethese documentsare availablein the 11 official languages.The indexpage, reproduced below, givesan indicationof the contentsof the site at present. 'Case-law', Of particularnote is which, sinceJune 1997, has offered rapid access free of chargeto all the recentjudgments delivered by the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance. The judgmentsare availableon the site, in the 11 official languages,from approximately3 p.m. on the day of delivery. Opinions 324 of the AdvocatesGeneral are also available under this heading in both the languageof the AdvocateGeneral and the languageof the case. Court of Justiceand Court of First Instance Introduction to the institution Researchand Documentation Pressand Information Library Case-law Texts relating to the institution 325 3. Publicationsof the Library, Researchand DocumentationDirectorate of the Court of Justice 3.1 Library 'Bibliographie (a) courante' Bimonthly bibliographycomprising a completelist of all the works - both monographsand articles- receivedor cataloguedduring the referenceperiod. The bibliographyconsists of two separateparts: - Part A: Legal publicationsconcerning European integration; - Part B: Jurisprudence- Internationallaw - Comparativelaw - National law. This bibliographyThis hasbibliography beenhas availablebeen sinceavailable Janunrysince 2000Janunry on2000 onthe theCourt'sCourt's internet site.site.internet (b) Legal Bibliographyof EuropeanIntegration Annualpublication based on booksacquired and periodicalsanalysed during the year in questionin the area of Communitylaw. Since the 1990 edition this bibliographyhas becomean official EuropeanCommunities publication. It containsapproximately 6 000 bibliographicalreferences with a systematicindex of subject-matterand an index of authors. The annualThe bibliographyannual isbibliography ison onsale atsale atthe addressesthe indicated addresses onindicated onthe lastlastthe page ofpage thisof publicationthis atpublication EURat 42,EUR excluding42, VAT.VAT.excluding 3.2. Researchand Documentation The Researchand DocumentationService producesa number of documents facilitatingaccess to the case-lawof the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance. ItInstance. Italso preparesalso annual preparesdocumentation annual on documentation bothon Communityboth and Community nationalnationaland case-lawrelating to the Brusselsand LuganoConventions. As specifiedbelow, thesedocuments are availableeither in printed form or electronicallyvia the Court's internetsite. 326 3.2.1. Documentsrelating to the case-lawof the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance (a) Digest of case-lawrelating to the EuropeanCommunities 'Digest The of case-lawrelating to the EuropeanCommunities - A Series', coveringthe case-lawof the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instanceto the exclusionof staff casesand of case-lawrelating to the BrusselsConvention on Jurisdictionand the Enforcementof Judgmentsin Civil and Commercial Matters,was first publishedin loose-leafform. A consolidatedand bound edition has been published in French ('Rdpertoire de jurisprudence de droit communautaire 1977-ß9A') and in German ('Nachschlagewerk der Rechtsprechungzum Gemeinschaftsrecht1977-1990') in t995 and 1998 respectively. Price of the consolidated edition: EUR 100, excluding VAT. Since1991 the A Serieshas been continued in the form of theBullain pöriodique de jurisprudence, a working document in French which is not published commercially(see (d)(i) below). The summariesof judgmentsand ordersof the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancecontained in the Bulletin pöriodique de jurisprudenceare also 'Digest becomingavailable on the Court's internet site, under the heading of Communitycase-law' in 'Researchand Documentation'. Currently the summaries for 1996and 1997appear there. (b) A-Z Index Computer-generatedpublication containinga numerical list of all the cases broughtbefore the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instancesince 1954, an alphabeticallist of namesof parties,and a list of nationalcourts or tribunals which have referredcases to the Court of Justicefor a preliminaryruling. The A-Z Indexgives details of the publicationof the Courts' decisionsin the Reports of Casesbefore the Court. This publicationThis ispublication availableis inavailable Englishin andEnglish French.and French.Volume II Volume IIis updatedupdatedis annuallv. 327 VolurneI (1953to 1988). Price: EUR 11, exchtd.ingVAT. VolumeII (1989to March 2000). Price: EUR 18, exchtd.ingVAT. The numericallist in the A-Z Index is also availableon the Court's internetsite. (c) Notes- Röfdrencesdes notes de doctrineaux arrötsde la Cour de justice et duet Tribunaldu deTribunal premiörede instanceinstancepremiöre This publication gives referencesto all the legal literature relating to the judgmentsof the Court of Justiceand of the Court of First Instance. It is updatedanrually. Prtce: EUR 15, ucluding VAT. 'Research It is also availableon the Court's internetsite, under the heading and Documentation'. Ordersfor Orders forany ofany ofthese publications these shouldpublications beshould besent tosent toone ofone ofthe thesalessales ffices fficeslisted onlisted theon lastthe pagelast ofpage ofthe presentthe publication.publication. present (d) Working documentswhich are not publishedcommercially (i) Bulletinp6riodique de jurisprudence A periodicpublication in Frenchassembling the summariesof thejudgments and orders of the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instance,set out in a systematicform identical to that of the "Röpertoirede jurisprudencede droit communautaire". A consolidatedversion coveringthe case-lawfrom 1991 to 1995is alsoavailable. (ii) (ii)Jurisprudence en Jurisprudence enmatiöre dematiöre defonction fonctionpublique communautairepublique (January(January communautaire 1988to December1999) A publicationin French containingabstracts of the decisionsof the Court of Justiceand of the Court of First Instancein casesbrought by officials and other servantsof the EuropeanCommunities, set out in systematicform. 328328 (iii) Internaldatabases The Court hasestablished internal databases covering the caseJawof the courts of the MemberStates concerning Community law and also the Brussels,Lugano andRome Conventions. It is possibleto requestinterrogation of the databaseson specificpoints and to obtain, in French,the resultsof sucha search. For further informationapply to theLibrary, Researchand Documentation Directorateof the Court of Justice,L-2925 Luxembourg. 3.2.2 Documentsrelating to the Brusselsand Lugano Conventions (a) Informationpursuant to ProtocolNo 2 annexedto the LuganoConvention Annualdocumentation covering the case-lawof the Court of Justicerelating to the BrusselsConvention on Jurisdictionand the Enforcementof Judgmentsin Civil andCommercial Matters and the case-lawof nationalcourts relating both to that Conventionand to the LuganoConvention, 'parallel' to the BrusselsConvention. The documentation,prepared for the benefit of, and sent to, the competent authoritiesof the ContractingParties to the LuganoConvention, is availableon the Court's internetsite, underthe heading'Research and Documentation'.I (b) Digestof case-lawrelating to the EuropeanCommunities - D Series The documentationreferred to in (a) aboveis a continuationof the 'Digest of case-lawrelating to the EuropeanCommunities - D Series', which was publishedin loose-leafform between1981 and 1993and contains the case-lawof the Court of Justiceand nationalcourts relatingto the BrusselsConvention on Jurisdictionand the Enforcementof Judgmentsin Civil andCommercial Matters. With the publicationof Issue 5 (February 1993) in German, French, Italian, English,Danish and Dutch, the D Seriesof the Digestcovers the case-lawof the Court of Justicefrom 1976to 1991and the case-lawof the courtsof the Member Statesfrom 1973to 1990. The documentationThe for documentation for1992 to 1992 to1996 has 1996 been has published been by published theby Swissthe Institute Swiss for Institute ComparativeComparativefor Law underLaw the under titlethe Recueiltitle de Recueil lnde jurisprudenceln de jurisprudence lade laCour desCour Commwautös des europöennes Commwautösetet europöennes des Coursdes suprümes Cours des suprümesEnts des paniesEnts relativepanies ärelative laä laconvention de convention Lugano,de VolsLugano, IVols Ito V.V.to 329 Price: EURPrice: 40,EUR uchtd.ing40, VAT.VAT.uchtd.ing (c) Brusselsand LuganoConventions - Multilingual edition A collectionof the texts of the BrusselsConvention of 27 September1968 and LuganoConvention of 16 September1988 on Jurisdictionand the Enforcement of Judgmentsin Civil and Commercial Matters, together with the acts of accession,protocols and declarationsrelating thereto, in all the original languages. The work, which containsan introductionin Englishand French,was published in 1997. Price: EURPrice: 30,EUR excluding30, VAT.VAT.excluding Interinstitutional,wobsites ELIROPA: ELIROPA:portal portalsite ofsite ofthe theEuropean UnionUnionEuropean htp://europa.eu.int Europais the accesspoint for all the informationmade available on the internet by the institutionsand bodiesof the EuropeanUnion, includingthe Parliament, the Council, the Commission,the Court of Justiqe,the Court of Auditors, the Economicand SocialCommittee, the Committeeof the Regions,the European Central BankCentral andBank theand Europeanthe Investment European Bank.Bank. Investment Europaprovides a vastarray of informationon Europeanintegration, particularly concerningthe EuropeanUnion's objectives,policies and institutionalsystem. Europa is designedto be user-friendly in line with the European Union institutions'commitment to openness. EUR-Lex: EUR-Lex:Community Communitylaw lawaccessible to accessible toallall http: //europa. eu. int/eur-lex The portal EUR-Lex offers integratedaccess free of charge to Community legislation and case-law. It also provides links to Prelex, the European Commission'sdatabase concerning interinstitutional procedures, to OEIL, the 330 EuropeanParliament's legislative observatory, and to other legislativesites of the EuropeanUnion institutionsand of the MemberStates. Designedto meet the needsof both professionaland non-professionalusers, it offers harmonisedsearch functions for all types of documents:the official Journal, the Treaties, legislation in preparation, legislation, case-law, parliamentaryquestions and documentsof public interest. The portal aims to presentlegislation in a coherentand user-friendlymanner and also includes explanatorydocuments describing the legislativeprocess in the EuropeanUnion and the key playersin that process. CELEX: Community law database http: //europa. eu. int/celex The computerisedCommunity law documentationsystem Celex (Communitatis EuropaeLex), which is managedby the office for official Publicationsof the EuropeanCommunities, the input being provided by the institutions, covers legislation,case-law, preparatory acts and parliamentary questions, together with nationalmeasures implementing directives. CELEX is a fee-paying service which, compared with EUR-Lex, offers subscribersnumerous value-added services, such as advancedsearch options, accessto analyticaldata, on-linehelp and the assistance ofahelp-desk, file export facilities, a profile-basedalert systemand so forth. For further informationon subscriptionoptions, see the heading'subscribe' on the Celexhomepage. 331 B - Abridged OrganisationatChart of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance oo €€clcl ^l^l tt tt L'L' tt (u(u UU uu tt $8 aa oo tata qlql oo (,(, idü IJIJ !uc €:€i x Ol.Je 0,0, ää8 oo |r |r lll lll !,!, ,-,- (,l-J L O,F €€!,!, !ot 0t0t UUII LL oo nn 0f0f tutu tltl IJIJ a,a, !! 33 E ta,. .l.l .a{{ {, .oS b ot oo UIUI tata o!, f,TE äl dct- tnl rt $$ t-6 rl T, IIT, 33 -l ss ülL IJIJ .jQ) äuä 0,0, (,)l g,g, E{ tt CI cc ä- 4.. cr- {aO EE oo *|*| t-t- ect tt äläl oo II aa l-fl-f {E oo II tl 66 .|..|.oo ElEl .[: .E.E t- al,al, HIHI CJCJ rlrl cc oo tt ?l?l c,c, thth UIUI ,-8H^ lA ,- *ä*3 *äuH *3PE= sE uHHtE:HtE: PE=sE tutu ;l !uI o E.i i.; E-.r E; 3 ä; F9.i ä aa €aJ -l-lJ slslat oo 4I4I E9I t-t- o OC' si clü UIUI (,c I t=l uu tb I L(u ldF I tü I äl 333 The Court of Justicemay be contactedat: COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES L-2925 LuxembourgLuxembourgL-2925 Telephone:(+352) 4303-I Telex(Registry): 2510 CURIA LU Telegraphicaddress: CURIA Fax (Court):(+ 352) 4303-2600 Fax (Pressand lnformationDivision): (+352) 4303-2500 Fax (InternalServices Division - PublicationsSection): (+352) 4303-2650 The Courton internet:www.curia.ebt.int 335 Courtof Justiceof the EuropeanCommunities Annual report 2001- Synopsisof the work of the Court of Justiceand the Court of First Instanceof the EuropeanCommunities Luxembourg:Office for Official Publicationsof the Europe;urCommunities 2002- 335pp. - l1 .6 x 25 cm rssN 1680-8304 66 llll E) 66 t[i .= 33 I ila s EE | =öh :--:-- qq EE oo :G = E. >9 oo bP o6 L> ob oo fiEE.ä o! oo | : oo E Ei o!2 :N ,i 9 q -; Ei EE Ed oQ €o- EE oo :o 9: titi uu == E o ltlt r Ii oo EE-9 -.999e ä.8 FO 9 osE == I;EE;€ J 5aI P:$* EE Sp __> o -o tQöl = @t- aa EsE 9u@ E NO: uu o nts;: E' 9s 53*i ß esSE säE:*38 i Eo-8Ea iq i-ö 33s; 5 E!? oo 4EEH;E 4 EE:frFüEE:frFüE E EEH;E -5 I esE E€F*E cäs+sgEäs+sgE c gEFiüEElg SEbE o o +o5 ?t sS p*,9j cc -5ög*h@ 6 ö.essEl . uu s PPE5uö Eu::ts :^ägm;Hb Rs33* c:6> ts{z :: o@g äERNsq,tERNsq,t ä p =o"lq€E =E::;3 Ee E $BEi$BEie E cccc CECEE*ä:äil*E: j LL Bi9äEo,oEi9äEo,oE B € ;äaaä YY tEa.1ll jeaa9i N YY ! *sffE ä - -o 6 FT5.S gE gE zz _ coo == EEFggg EEöääEE sr ääiä E x.xNN.. EPps$isEPps$is; E3€siiX = FF FF rI E r;= 9,€.E1: II aa E :-Eiüä e :$=5äi f 55 €FEE$$:FEE$$: € t 8;srsrE EäFs€i E:e-Ei "EEai 5 o*däF (E(E 3 HFeFi3 E HFeFiH8efi54H8efi54 E #äse,if 4 ==HHFsHffifHHFsHffif=s5*ef5 U LNFUU oo #.8äti.BefiE4äti.BefiE4 #.8 oo fi EE:äPtriEE:äPtrifi äsFe'Ii .EElPfi.is ItIt aäulEEffE:ää$#äaäulEEffE:ää$#ä trtr oo aa qq 44 CLCL EF EE qq O- FE d19 EE OE +; öö '4 EE .\ : cici o6 Xv FF sl N O! Eä ^Ef; o ;q ,EF *äi ao ox N'F .9 tttt.9 :Ä ,PE 'F'F yX ; .! 6ö L-o P !! !! $n =: -gE .= Iq#ä SEetF ä €EEEEoo Fa86 II 99 = I io{ d o+@@; ä EseeiJNts :;89ö $öö;i .888 N - C X 'g olrEEq C-F Y A pF*E"+pF*E"+-9-9 serA -;; iE frE3g q$E+ - E. E. -gNoY - o__ "$. anäöE i 9=q88Fi' r $+ääE GG .nE 5 -F€9 *äs *s;aEs;aE äs 50oruI ä :.e;:öä E?ässä= oo ät :üilH= o oN^^ fi !see'$$EE , iEgqqeiEgqqe, o ;ö55 E 22 !! *;-sBä = =-=q-=q YY r sl=r;E€€EgffiE == E >9ryq'* cc 9Eoo'B =rE Ee=af;f;cle=af;f;cl E E .gö'iT d ä 9FQQ6=' trtr FF EiEEEiEEE E €EE:€33ic zz trtr xü==-- EüEB$$i G -gFöO=- oo EEäffiEEäffiEE EE E :ööö r4 Ä öissr E;äOöä UU FF ö!w5 i o^ SeeEi -öb oo ; äöPesEi 0 EsF33tsF33t E !älsiE oo cc >c ! E-tl6 ä F 'E 'E ll oäni ä F II < Y(')LFLU ,i äPFFi 9Eer59Eer5 EE L