title: Case C-157/99: References for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissementsrechtbank, Roermond, by order of that court of 28 April 1999 in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets against Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms against Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen

text:
C 226/12              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
References for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondisse-                  2. If the requirement to obtain authorisation constitutes a
mentsrechtbank, Roermond, by order of that court of                         barrier to the freedom to provide services enshrined in
28 April 1999 in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets against                   Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty, are the overriding
Stichting Ziekenfonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms                             reasons in the general interest relied or by the defendants
      against Stichting CZ Groep Zorgverzekeringen                          (inter alia, in the letter cited above of 14 July 1998)
                                                                            sufficient in order for the barrier to be regarded as justified?
                        (Case C-157/99)
                        (1999/C 226/19)
                                                                        Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against the French Republic
References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Arrondissementsrecht-
bank (District Court), Roermond, of 28 April 1999, received                                      (Case C-160/99)
at the Court Registry on 30 April 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of B.S.M. Smits-Geraets v Stichting Zieken-
fonds VGZ, and H.T.M. Peerbooms v Stichting CZ Groep                                             (1999/C 226/20)
Zorgverzekeringen, on the following questions:
                                                                        An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                        Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
1.                                                                      1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Frank Benyon, Legal Adviser, and Bernard
                                                                        Mongin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address
                                                                        for service in luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    (a) Must Articles 59 and 60 of the EC Treaty be interpreted         Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
        as meaning that a provision such as Article 9(4) of the
        ZFW in conjunction with Article 1 of the rules on               The Commission of the European Communities claims that
        health care abroad under the sickness assurance scheme          the Court should:
        is inconsistent with those Treaty provisions where the
        national rules cited provide that a person insured under
        the sickness assurance fund requires prior authorisation        1. declare that in making no change as regards Community
        from the sickness assurance fund in order to seek his               shipowners covered by Article 1(1) of Council Regulation
        entitlement to benefits from a person or establishment              (EEC) No 3577/92 of 7 December 1992 applying the
        outside the Netherlands?                                            principle of freedom to provide services to maritime
                                                                            transport within Member States (maritime cabotage) (1) to
                                                                            Article 257(1) of the Code des Douanes (Customs Code)
                                                                            of 11 May 1977, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                            obligations under that regulation;
    (b) What is the answer to Question 1(a) where the
        authorisation referred to therein is refused, or does not
        apply, because the relevant treatment in the other              2. order the French Republic to pay the costs.
        member State is not regarded ’as normal in professional
        circles’ and thus is deemed not to constitute a benefit
        within the meaning of Article 8 of the legislation on
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
        sickness assurance funds (ZFW)? Does it make any
        difference in that connection whether regard is had
        solely to the conceptions of Netherlands professional           Even though Regulation 3577/92 has direct effect, the continu-
        circles and whether national or international scientific        ance in force of Article 257(1) of the Customs Code, which
        yardsticks are applied and, if so, in what respect? Is          reserves transport between the ports of metropolitan France
        it also relevant whether the relevant treatment is              to ships flying the national flag, creates a situation of legal
        reimbursed under the social security system provided            uncertainty and ambiguity, leaving the persons concerned in
        for under the law of that other Member state?                   doubt as to whether they can invoke Community law. The
                                                                        fact that the competent authorities of the State’s regional
                                                                        administration were notified of the regulation does not
                                                                        eliminate the infringement.
    (c) What is the answer to question 1(a) where the treat-
        ment abroad is deemed to be normal and therefore to
        constitute a benefit but the requisite authorisation is         (1) OJ 1992 L 364, 12.12.1992, p. 7.
        refused on the ground that timely and adequate care
        can be obtained from a contracted Netherlands care
        provider and treatment abroad is therefore not neces-
        sary for the health care of the person concerned?


C 246/46              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  28.8.1999
       Removal from the register of Case T-32/96 (1)                             Removal from the register of Case T-6/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/93)                                                           (1999/C 246/96)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: English)
By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second                    By order of 5 May 1999 the President of the Fifth Chamber of
Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 ordered the removal from the register of Case T-6/97: Com-
the register of Case T-32/96: Société Générale v Commission              africa SpA and Dole Fresh Fruit Europe Ltd & Co. v Com-
of the European Communities.                                             mission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ C 133 of 4.5.1996.                                                (1) OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and
                           T-8/97 (1)                                           Removal from the register of Case T-62/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/94)                                                           (1999/C 246/97)
                  (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: French)
By order of 25 February 1999 the President of the Fifth                  By order of 12 April 1999 the President of the Second
Chamber, Extended Composition of the Court of First Instance             Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                 of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Joined Cases T-153/96 and T-8/97: Union                  the register of Case T-62/97: Société Générale v Commission
Carbide Corporation v Commission of the European Com-                    of the European Communities.
munities.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 166 of 31.5.1997.
(1) OJ C 354 of 23.11.1996 and OJ C 74 of 8.3.1997.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-124/97 (1)
        Removal from the register of Case T-1/97 (1)
                        (1999/C 246/95)                                                           (1999/C 246/98)
                   (Language of the case: French)                                           (Language of the case: Spanish)
By order of 31 May 1999 the President of the Second Chamber              By order of 15 April 1999 the President of the First Chamber
of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities               of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-1/97:                has ordered the removal from the register of Case T-124/97:
Jean-Luc Delhaye v Commission of the European Communi-                   Miguel Dı́az-Llanos La Roche v Commission of the European
ties.                                                                    Communities.
(1) OJ C 54 of 22.2.1997.                                                (1) OJ C 181 of 14.6.1997.


title: Action brought on 22 March 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-92/96)

text:
4 . 5 . 96               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 133/ 19
Action brought on 22 March 1996 by the Commission of                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by judgment of the
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                       Supremo Tribunal Administrative ( Second Division, Tax
                                 Spain                                Cases ) of 14 February 1996 in the case of ICT — Industria e
                           Case C-92/96 )                                       Comércio Têxtil, SA v. Fazenda Publica
                           ( 96/C 133/41 )                                                    ( Case C-93/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 133/42 )
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
22 March 1996 by the Commission of the European                       European Communities by order of the Supremo Tribunal
Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,                       Administrative ( Supreme Administrative Court), Second
Principal Legal Adviser, and Fernando Castillo de la Torre,           Division, Tax Cases, of 15 February 1996 , which was
of its Legal Service, with an address for service in                  received at the Court Registry on 25 March 1996 , for a
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                  preliminary ruling in the case of ICT — Industria e
                                                                      Comércio Têxtil , SA v. Fazenda Publica ( Revenue
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                      Authority ) on the following questions :
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          1 . Is the increase ( of 1 % for each month that elapses
                                                                          without payment being made, following the 30th day
                                                                          after the arrival of the goods in the customs territory of
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to              the Community ) provided for in Article 1 ( 3 ) of Council
     ensure that the quality of inshore bathing waters                    Regulation ( EEC ) No 738/92 of 23 March 1992
     conforms to the limit values set in Article 3 of Council             imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC ('), the Kingdom of Spain has                  cotton yarn originating in Brazil and Turkey (')
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Council          applicable to the free-at-Community-frontier price
     Directive 76/ 160/EEC of 8 December 1975 and under                   whenever it is agreed that the price is payable on a date
     Articles 5 and 189 of the EC Treaty; and                             falling after that 30th day ?
— order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .                       2 . If the answer to the foregoing question cannot be
                                                                          unconditionally affirmative, as a result of the need for a
                                                                          distinction to be drawn, is the said increase applicable in
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           circumstances like those of this case ( see the facts
                                                                          proved ) where the price of the imported goods, agreed as
                                                                          payable in 90 days, was about 2,3 % ( in one case ) and
There is no provision in the Act of Accession of Spain                    2,5 % ( in another case ) greater than the price payable
which allows a postponement of the application of                         CAD ( cash against documents )?
Directive 76/ 160/EEC, so that, in accordance with
Article 395 of that Act of Accession and with Article 4 ( 1 ) of      3 . If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative ,
Directive 76/160/EEC, the quality of bathing water is to                  must that increase be applied to the price corresponding
conform to the limit values set in the Directive as from
                                                                          to payment CAD or to the price agreed as payable in
 1 January 1986 , since Community law is mandatory from                   90 days ?
the moment of accession . The applicant points out in this
respect that the Commission has in any event given a
considerable period in which to comply with the obligations           (>) OJ No L 82 , 1992 , p . 1 .
under the Directive .
In any event, the Spanish State has not relied upon the
derogations provided for in Articles 4 ( 3 ), 5 ( 2 ) and 8 of
Directive 76/ 160/EEC . Thus, non-compliance with the
values set in accordance with Article 3 of Directive
 76/160/EEC is tantamount to a failure to fulfil obligations                Removal from the register of Case C-110/92 ( 1 )
under Article 4 of the Directive . In any event, the applicant                                   ( 96/C 133/43 )
recalls that the problem of non-compliance with the
parameters given in Directive 76/160/EEC may also be
resolved by declaring bathing areas unfit for bathing where           By order of 23 January 1996 the President of the Court of
they do not conform to the parameters given in the                    Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Directive .                                                           from the register of Case C-l 10/92 : Federal Republic of
                                                                      Germany v . Commission of the European Communities .
 (') OJ No L 31 , 5 . 2 . 1976 , p . 1 .
                                                                      (') OJ No C 124 , 16 . 5 . 1992 .


title: Order of the Court of 17 May 2002 in Case C-406/01: Federal Republic of Germany v European Parliament and Council of the European Union (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Delay)

text:
10.8.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 191/13
between Buchhändler-Vereinigung GmbH and Saur Verlag                         p. 1) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,
GmbH & Co. KG, Die Deutsche Bibliothek, on the interpret-                    President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr,
ation of Articles 1 and 8 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of                  Presidents of Chamber, C. Gulmann (rapporteur),
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for                  D. A. O. Edward, A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
the award of public service contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), as              V. Skouris, J. N. Cunha Rodrigues and C. W. A. Timmermans,
amended by European Parliament and Council Directive 97/                     Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,
52/EC of 13 October 1997 (OJ 1997 L 328, p. 1), the Court                    has made an order on 26 April 2002, in which it has ruled:
(Second Chamber) composed of: N. Colneric, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rapporteur), Judges;
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made               The question referred by the Corte d’Appello di Milano by order of
an order on 30 May 2002, the operative part of which is as                   25 October 2000 is inadmissible.
follows:
                                                                             (1) OJ C 17, 19.1.2002.
A concession contract for public publishing services is excluded, under
Community law as it stands at present, from the scope of Council
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination
of procedures for the award of public service contracts, as amended by
European Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October
1997, even though, by reason of its specific object, it is covered by
Annex I A to that directive to which Article 8 thereof refers.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
                                                                                of 17 May 2002
                                                                             in Case C-406/01: Federal Republic of Germany v Euro-
                                                                               pean Parliament and Council of the European Union (1)
                     ORDER OF THE COURT                                      (Action for annulment — Manifest inadmissibility — Delay)
                          of 26 April 2002                                                             (2002/C 191/23)
in Case C-454/00 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                       (Language of the case: German)
the Corte d’Appello di Milano): VIS Farmaceutici Istituto
scientifico delle Venezie SpA v Duphar International
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            Research BV (1)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
            (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
                           (2002/C 191/22)                                   In Case C-406/01: Federal Republic of Germany (Agents:
                                                                             W.-D. Plessing and M. Lumma, assisted by J. Sedemund) v
                                                                             European Parliament (Agents: C. Pennera and E. Waldherr) and
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                         Council of the European Union (Agents: E. Karlsson and
                                                                             J.-P. Hix) — application for annulment of Article 3(1) in
                                                                             conjunction with Article 3(2) of Directive 2001/37/EC of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 on
                    in the European Court Reports)                           the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture,
                                                                             presentation and sale of tobacco products (OJ 2001 L 194,
                                                                             p. 26), in so far as those provisions prohibit the manufacture
In Case C-454/00: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                of cigarettes for export from the European Community to
from the Corte d’appello di Milano (Italy) for a preliminary                 non-Member States — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                  Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von
VIS Farmaceutici Istituto scientifico delle Venezie SpA and                  Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward,
Duphar International Research BV, intervener: Consorzio                      A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, M. Wathelet,
Produttori Principi Attivi Generici (CPA) — on the interpret-                R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, C.W.A. Tim-
ation of Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of                 mermans and A. Rosas, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary                      General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 17 May 2002,
protection certificate for medicinal products (OJ 1992 L 182,                the operative part of which is as follows:
 ---pagebreak--- C 191/14                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        10.8.2002
1.    The action is dismissed.                                              The question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Landesgericht
                                                                            für Zivilrechtssachen Wien by decision of 5 November 2001 is
                                                                            inadmissible.
2.    The Federal Republic of Germany is ordered to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 84, 6.4.2002.
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
                                                                            Action brought on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of
                                                                            the European Communities against the Federal Republic
                                                                                of Germany
                    ORDER OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Case C-107/02)
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (2002/C 191/25)
                         of 21 March 2002
                                                                            An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
in Case C-447/01 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien): DLD
                                                                            ties on 22 March 2002 by the Commission of the European
Trading Company Import-Export, spol. s.r.o. v Republic
                                                                            Communities, represented by Götz zur Hausen, legal adviser
                            of Austria (1)
                                                                            to the Commission of the European Communities, with an
                                                                            address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar
                                                                            Guerrero, of the Commission’s Legal Service, Wagner Centre
             (Preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)                         C 254, Kirchberg.
                          (2002/C 191/24)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)                           1.    declare that, by failing to adopt, or in any event to
                                                                                forward to the Commission, the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                                Council Directive 96/29/Euratom (1) of 13 May 1996
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published            laying down basic safety standards for the protection of
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                the health of workers and the general public against the
                                                                                dangers arising from ionising radiation, in respect of the
                                                                                clean-up of waste, the construction and clean-up of
                                                                                uranium-ore extraction sites and the operation of radio-
                                                                                logical installations, the Federal Republic of Germany has
In Case C-447/01: reference to the Court under Article 234                        failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
EC from the Landesgericht für Zivilrechtssachen Wien (Austria)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
                                                                            2.    order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
that court between DLD Trading Company Import-Export,
spol. s.r.o. and Republic of Austria — first, as to whether
Austrian provisions infringe Community law in that they limit
travellers’ duty-free allowance to EUR 75 or EUR 100 when
coming from certain countries as well as certain quantitative               Pleas in law and main arguments
restrictions in regard to the relief from turnover tax and excise
duty on tobacco products and, secondly, as to the conditions
in which a Member State may be liable for damage suffered by                It follows from the binding nature of directives pursuant to
an individual as a result of infringements of Community law                 Article 161, third paragraph, EAEC and under Article 192,
— the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. Macken,                        first paragraph, EAEC that the Member States to whom the
President of the Chamber, N. Colneric, R. Schintgen (Rappor-                directive is addressed are required to transpose the provisions
teur), V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber,               of the directive into national law in such a way that, from the
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on                 expiry of the period prescribed for transposition of that
21 March 2002, in which it has ruled:                                       directive, those provisions take full practical effect.


title: Case C-307/03: Action brought on 18 July 2003 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
20.9.2003             EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 226/9
Action brought on 18 July 2003 by the Italian Republic                   1.   Where the period for calculation of the basis of contribu-
    against Commission of the European Communities                            tion for unemployment benefit coincided with exercise of
                                                                              the right to reduced working hours and salary in order to
                        (Case C-307/03)                                       care for a child, does the correct transposition of clause 2
                                                                              (8) of the framework agreement contained in Directive
                        (2003/C 226/13)                                       96/34 (1) into the domestic law of Member States, and
                                                                              specifically into Spanish law, require those States to adopt
An action against the Commission of the European                              in social security legislation relating specifically to unem-
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the                    ployment benefit measures to offset the effect of the lower
European Communities on 18 July 2003 by the Italian                           contribution to the social security scheme as a result of the
Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia, acting as Agent,                   reduced salary received by a worker exercising that right,
assisted by Maurizio Fiorilli, Avvocato dello Stato.                          so as not to cause the worker's unemployment benefit to
                                                                              be reduced?
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         2.   Should the preceding question be answered affirmatively,
—     Annul the financial correction imposed against Italy by
      Commission Decision No C(2003) 1539 final of 15 May
      2003.                                                                   Can failure to comply with the duty under clause 2(8) of
                                                                              the framework agreement contained in Directive 96/34,
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               once the time-limit established in Article 2 of the Directive
                                                                              for its transposition has expired, be remedied directly by
First, the applicant claims that the spot checks were of poor                 the national court in the proceedings in which these
quality: it disagrees with the findings of the Commission's                   preliminary questions are raised, in the decision adopted
officials as regards the procedure and effectiveness of the                   to determine those proceedings?
checks carried out.
As regards failure to repay aid in respect of non-eligible areas,
the applicant maintains that financial corrections may not be            (1) Council Directive 96/34/EC of 3 June 1996 on the framework
made where the Member State has kept to measures agreed                      agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the
with the Commission and improved checking procedures, as                     ETUC (OJ L 145 of 19.6.1996, p. 4).
admitted by the Commission and as shown by the fact that it is
sought to confer retroactive effectiveness to the scope of check-
ing procedures which have been gradually improved.
Finally, the applicant maintains that the contested decision is
vitiated by misapplication of Article 9(3) of Regulation                 Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the
No 3887/92 (1) (areas to be used for calculation of the aid).                European Communities against the Italian Republic
                                                                                (Case C-313/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 226/15)
(1) OJ L 391, 31.12.1992, p. 36.
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
                                                                         Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July 2003
                                                                         by the Commission of the European Communities, represented
                                                                         by M.-J. Jonczy, acting as Agent.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
Social No 33 by order of that Court of 8 July 2003 in the                The applicant claims that the Court should:
case of Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de
                         Empleo (Inem)                                   —     find that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                               administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council
                        (Case C-309/03)                                        Directive 1999/63/EC (1) of 21 June 1999 concerning the
                                                                               Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers
                        (2003/C 226/14)                                        concluded by the European Community Shipowners"
                                                                               Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                         Workers" Unions in the European Union (FST) — Annex:
European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social                      European Agreement on the organisation of working time of
(Social Court) No 33 of 8 July 2003, received at the Court                     seafarers, or in any event, by failing to communicate any
Registry on 23 July 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of              such provisions to the Commission, the Italian Republic has
Ana Isabel López Gil against Instituto Nacional de Empleo                      failed to satisfy its obligations under Article 3(1) of that
(Inem) on the following questions:                                             directive;


title: Judgment of the Court of 17 September 2002 in Case C-513/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab v Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-Bussiliikenne (Public service contracts in the transport sector — Directives 92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Contracting municipality which organises bus transport services and an economically independent entity of which participates in the tender procedure as a tenderer — Taking into account of criteria relating to the protection of the environment to determine the economically most advantageous tender — Whether permissible when the municipal entity which is tendering meets those criteria more easily)

text:
C 274/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                           9.11.2002
the legislation of the Member State of residence for the award of such      composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,
benefits are not or are no longer satisfied and where the entitlement       acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann,
of the pensioner or of the orphans claiming under the deceased worker       J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and V. Skouris,
is not acquired, in the other Member State, solely under the legislation    Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
of that State. None the less, in such a situation, the competent            trator, Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 2002,
institution of the Member State other than that of residence may be         in which it has ruled:
required to award the benefit at issue under a social-security
convention entered into by the two Member States concerned and
                                                                            1.    Article 2(1) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
incorporated in their national law prior to the entry into force of the
                                                                                17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Regulation, where the persons concerned have an established right to
                                                                                States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
continued application of that convention after the entry into force of
                                                                                added tax: uniform basis of assessment must be interpreted as
the Regulation.
                                                                                meaning that a supply of services which is effected for
                                                                                consideration but is not based on enforceable obligations,
                                                                                because it has been agreed that the provider is bound in honour
( 1) OJ C 122 of 29.4.2000.                                                       only to provide the services, constitutes a transaction subject to
                                                                                value added tax.
                                                                            2.    Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 must be
                                                                                interpreted as meaning that the full amount of the entry fees
                                                                                received by the organiser of a competition constitutes the taxable
                                                                                amount for that competition where the organiser has that
                                                                                amount freely at his disposal.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ C 47 of 19.2.2000.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 17 September 2002                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 17 September 2002
in Case C-498/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester): Town &
County Factors Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and                           in Case C-513/99 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                               Excise ( 1)                                  the Korkein hallinto-oikeus): Concordia Bus Finland Oy
                                                                                Ab v Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-Bussiliikenne (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Scope — Competition whose                            (Public service contracts in the transport sector — Directives
 organiser binds himself in honour only — Taxable amount)                   92/50/EEC and 93/38/EEC — Contracting municipality
                                                                            which organises bus transport services and an economically
                                                                            independent entity of which participates in the tender
                           (2002/C 274/05)                                  procedure as a tenderer — Taking into account of criteria
                                                                            relating to the protection of the environment to determine
                                                                            the economically most advantageous tender — Whether
                     (Language of the case: English)                        permissible when the municipal entity which is tendering
                                                                                meets those criteria more easily)
                                                                                (2002/C 274/06)
In Case C-498/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
                                                                                (Language of the case: Finnish)
EC by the VAT and Duties Tribunal, Manchester (United
Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that tribunal between Town & County Factors Ltd and                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on the interpretation                                      in the European Court Reports)
of Articles 2(1), 6(1) and 11A(1) of Sixth Council Directive
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  In Case C-513/99: Reference to the Court under Article 234
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      EC by the Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Finland) for a preliminary
 ---pagebreak--- 9.11.2002                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 274/5
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Concordia Bus Finland Oy Ab, formerly Stagecoach Finland
Oy Ab, and Helsingin kaupunki, HKL-Bussiliikenne, on the
interpretation of Articles 2(1)(a), (2)(c) and (4) and 34(1) of                                       of 24 September 2002
Council Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating
the procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (OJ 1993
L 199, p. 84), as amended by the Act concerning the conditions                in Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P: Falck SpA,
of accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland              Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, v Commission of the European
and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the                                                     Communities ( 1)
Treaties on which the European Union is founded (OJ 1994
C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1, p. 1), and Article 36(1) of
Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the                   (State aid — ECSC scheme — Rights of the recipient of aid
coordination of procedures for the award of public service                    — Scope: no need for trade and competition to be affected
contracts (OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1), the Court, composed of:                      — Applicability of different State aid codes over time —
G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, P. Jann and F. Macken                     Rate of interest to be applied for the repayment of incompat-
(Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                                                    ible aid)
Pergola, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris (Rappor-
teur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September                                                    (2002/C 274/07)
2002, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
1.    Article 36(1)(a) of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
      1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award
      of public service contracts must be interpreted as meaning that         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      where, in the context of a public contract for the provision of                              in the European Court Reports)
      urban bus transport services, the contracting authority decides
      to award a contract to the tenderer who submits the economically
      most advantageous tender, it may take into consideration
      ecological criteria such as the level of nitrogen oxide emissions
      or the noise level of the buses, provided that they are linked to
                                                                              In Joined Cases C-74/00 P and C-75/00 P: Falck SpA,
      the subject-matter of the contract, do not confer an unrestricted
                                                                              established in Milan (Italy), (lawyers: G. Macrì, M. Condinanzi
      freedom of choice on the authority, are expressly mentioned in
                                                                              and F. Colussi) Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA, established in
      the contract documents or the tender notice, and comply with
                                                                              Bolzano (Italy) (lawyer: B. Nascimbene) — appeal against the
      all the fundamental principles of Community law, in particular
                                                                              judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
      the principle of non-discrimination.
                                                                              Communities (Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                              16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96 Acciaierie di Bolzano v
                                                                              Commission [1999] ECR II-3927, the other parties to the
2.    The principle of equal treatment does not preclude the taking           proceedings being Commission of the European Communities
      into consideration of criteria connected with protection of the         (Agents: V. di Bucci and K.-D. Borchardt) and Italian Republic
      environment, such as those at issue in the main proceedings,            (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted by D. Del Gaizo), with an address
      solely because the contracting entity’s own transport undertaking       for service in Luxembourg, the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrí-
      is one of the few undertakings able to offer a bus fleet satisfying     guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann, F. Macken, N. Colneric and
      those criteria.                                                         S. von Bahr (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, A. La
                                                                              Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), M. Wathelet, V. Skouris
                                                                              and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
3.    The answer to the second and third questions would not be               L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment
      different if the procedure for the award of the public contract at      on 24 September 2002 in which it:
      issue in the main proceedings fell within the scope of Council
      Directive 93/38/EEC of 14 June 1993 coordinating the
      procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,              1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
      energy, transport and telecommunications sectors.                             16 December 1999 in Case T-158/96 Acciaierie di Bolzano
                                                                                v Commission in so far as the Commission’s tardiness in
                                                                                requiring repayment entailed an infringement of the principle
                                                                                of legal certainty;
( 1) OJ C 102 of 8.4.2000.
                                                                              2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeals;
                                                                              3.    Dismisses the action for annulment brought by Acciaierie di
                                                                                Bolzano SpA before the Court of First Instance;


title: Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 October 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento

text:
C 34/12                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      5.2.2000
may not, without infringing the directive, adopt legal pro-                 Action brought on 12 November 1999 by the Com-
visions which prohibit such a service. Article 47(1)(a) of                  mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
Decree-Law No 240/97 is therefore contrary to the directive                                          guese Republic
in so far as it prohibits the provision of ‘call-back’ services.
                                                                                (Case C-435/99)
(1) Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on compe-
     tition in the markets for telecommunications services (OJ 1990 L                                (2000/C 34/23)
     192, p. 10).
(2) Commission Directive 96/19/EC of 13 March 1996 amending
     Directive 90/388/EEC with regard to the implementation of full
                                                                            An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
     competition in telecommunications markets (OJ 1996 L 74,               the Court of Justice on 12 November 1999 by the Commission
     p. 13).                                                                of the European Communities, represented by Lena Ström,
                                                                            Legal Adviser, and António Caeiros, of its Legal Service, acting
                                                                            as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                            office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of its Legal Service,
                                                                            Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                            The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                            (a) Declare that, by not forwarding to the Commission the
                                                                                reports needed to comply with:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Commissione
Tributaria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6, by
orders of that court of 30 September 1999 and 14 Octo-                          — Article 13(1) of Council Directive 76/464/EEC (1) of
ber 1999 in the cases of (1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against                             4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Trento; and (2) NTB SpA                                  substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
(formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA) against Ufficio                                   the Community;
                Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento
                                                                                — Article 14 of Council Directive 78/176/EEC (2) of
                                                                                20 February 1978 on waste from the titanium dioxide
                   (Cases C-433/99 and C-434/99)                                    industry, as amended by Directive 83/29/EEC (3);
                            (2000/C 34/22)                                      — Article 16 of Council Directive 78/659/EEC (4) of
                                                                                18 July 1978 on the quality of fresh waters needing
                                                                                protection or improvement in order to support fish
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                              life, as amended by the 1985 Act of Accession;
European Communities by orders of the Commissione Tributa-
ria di Primo Grado di Trento, Sezione No 6 (Tax Court of First
Instance, Trento, Sixth Chamber) of 30 September 1999                           — Article 16(1) of Council Directive 80/68/EEC (5) of
and 14 October 1999, received at the Court Registry on                              17 December 1979 on the protection of groundwater
11 November 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the cases of                          against pollution caused by certain dangerous sub-
(1) Panarotta 2002 Srl against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di                           stances;
Trento; and (2) NTB SpA (formerly Nuova Tessilbrenta SpA)
against Ufficio Imposte Dirette di Tione di Trento on the                       — Article 5(1) and the first paragraph of Article 5(2) of
following question:                                                                 Council Directive 82/176/EEC(6) of 22 March 1982
                                                                                on limit values and quality objectives for mercury
                                                                                discharges by the chlor-alkali;
‘Is it compatible with Community law, and in particular with
Directive 69/335/EEC (1), to tax over a period of years at
the rate of 0,75 % per annum pursuant to Decree-Law                             — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 83/513/EEC (7)
No 394/1992 of 30 September 1992 that part of the taxable                           of 26 September 1983 on limit values and quality
base of the tax on net assets consisting of a company’s capital                     objectives for cadmium discharges;
disclosed annually by the balance sheet which has already
borne the tax on contributions of 1 %?’                                         — Article 6(1) of Council Directive 84/156/EEC (8) of
                                                                                8 March 1984 on limit values and quality objectives
                                                                                for mercury discharges by sectors other than the
(1) OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412).                                 chlor-alkali electrolysis industry;
                                                                                — Article 5(1) and (2) of Council Directive 84/491/EEC (9)
                                                                                of 9 October 1984 on limit values and quality objec-
                                                                                tives for discharges of hexachlorocyclohexane;


title: Case T-425/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — AMS v OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services — Earlier national word mark AMS — Absolute ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Request for proof of genuine use made for the first time before the Board of Appeal — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/38

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 October 2007 — AMS v OHIM — American Medical Systems (AMS Advanced Medical Services)
   (Case T-425/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community trade mark AMS Advanced Medical Services - Earlier national word mark AMS - Absolute ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Request for proof of genuine use made for the first time before the Board of Appeal - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94)
   (2007/C 297/77)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: G. Lindhofer initially, and subsequently by G. Lindhofer and S. Schäffler, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: American Medical Systems, Inc. (Minnetonka, Minnesota, United States) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 September 2003 (Case R 671/2002-4) relating to the opposition proceedings between AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH and American Medical Systems, Inc.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders AMS Advanced Medical Services GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 20.3.2004.


20 . 12 . 97      EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                             C 387/27
      Removal from the register of Case T-134/97 (')             Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                     ( 97/C 387/51 )                             Case T-134/97: Kesko Oy v. Commission of the European
                                                                 Communities .
             (Language of the case: English)
By order of 9 October 1997 the President of the Second
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European              OJ C 199 , 28 . 6 . 1997 .
 ---pagebreak---                                   NOTICE TO READERS
In 1998 several changes to the Official Journal (OJ) L & C subscription will be introduced.
This notice aims to help paying subscribers make an informed choice about the new
possibilities.
EU LAW SERVICE
Starting in January 1 998, the full text (including tables and graphics) of new editions of the
OJ L & C will be available in all 1 1 languages free of charge on the Internet (http://europa
eu.int) for a period of 20 days .
OJ L & C CD-ROM
In 1998 a CD-ROM version of the OJ L & C will be published in quarterly, cumulative,
single-language editions . Current subscribers to the OJ L & C who purchase the CD-ROM
subscription in addition to the paper or microfiche version or CELEX will benefit from a
promotional discount of 50% on the CD-ROM . A LAN option will be available. Individual
copies of each CD-ROM can also be purchased.
FLAT FEE SUBSCRIPTION TO CELEX
In Spring 1998 a flat fee subscription to CELEX will be available, offering one year's access
at a fixed price (960 ECU), independent of consumption. CELEX is the EU 's official legal
database offering unparalleled coverage of EU legislation since 1951 (http://europa
eu.int/celex).
PENALTIES FOR LATE RENEWALS OF PAPER SUBSCRIPTION
Despatch of the paper version of the OJ L & C will be stopped on 31 January 1998 to all
paying subscribers who have not renewed their subscription by then . Subscribers starting or
renewing a subscription to the OJ L & C after this date may choose :
  (i) not to receive retroactive despatch of missing editions, and pay only for months
      received ;
 (ii) to receive the CD-ROM version of the missing editions, and pay the normal annual
      subscription fee;
(iii) to receive the paper version of the missing editions, and pay double for each month
      requiring retroactive despatch.
Please note it is now possible to purchase all versions of subscription to the Official Journal
L & C (paper, microfiche, off-line and CELEX) from any member of the EUR-OP sales
networks, except document delivery agents. Please contact your sales agent for further
details on the above .


title: Case T-120/16: Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)

text:
               17.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/24

         Action brought on 22 March 2016 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (Burlington)
   (Case T-120/16)
   (2016/C 175/28)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

      Applicant: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘Burlington’ — International registration designating the European Union No 1 017 273

      Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 in Case R 94/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the contested mark in respect of all of the contested goods;

               —

               order the payment of the costs incurred by the applicant in connection with this appeal.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Articles 8(5), 8(4) and 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 1999 in Case C-69/97 Commission of the European Communities v SNUA Srl (Arbitration clause - Breach of contract)

text:
17.7.1999               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 204/7
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-                  at the rate of ECU 43.09 per day of late payment from 1 April
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of                         1988 and, second, to pay the Commission the sum of
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P.J.G. Kapteyn and G. Hirsch           ECU 60 000 by way of compensation for the damage suffered
(Rapporteur) (Presidents of Chambers), G.F. Mancini, J.C.                   — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J.-P. Puissochet
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón                   (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, P. Jann, C. Gulmann
and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate General: N. Fennelly,                     D.A.O. Edward and L. Sevón, Judges; Advocate General: A. La
Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator —                   Pergola; Registrar: H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, has
has given a judgment on 27 April 1999 in which it held that:                given a judgment on 27 April 1999, in which it:
1. On a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) of the Sixth               1. Orders SNUA Srl to pay to the Commission of the European
    Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                           Communities the sum of EUR 195 397 together with interest
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                   at a rate of EUR 43.09 per day of late payment as from 1 April
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                   1988 until final settlement of the debt;
    basis of assessment, the terms ‘rebates’ and ‘price discounts’
    cannot be applied to reductions covering the whole cost of              2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
    supplying redemption goods.
                                                                            3. Orders SNUA Srl to pay the costs.
2. On a proper construction of Article 5(6) of the Sixth Directive
    77/388, the application by an oil company of goods which are            (1) OJ C 131 of 26.4.1997.
    disposed of to a purchaser of fuel in exchange for vouchers which
    he has obtained in varying quantifies, depending on the volume
    of fuel purchased, on payment of the full retail price for fuel from
    the pump — under a sales promotion scheme such as that in
    issue in the main proceedings — must, where the goods are not
    of small value, be treated as a supply for consideration within the
    meaning of that provision.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.                                                                               (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 28 April 1999
                                                                            in Case C-405/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                            by the Finanzgericht Bremen): Mövenpick Deutschland
                                                                              GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v Hauptzollamt Bremen (1)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            (Combined nomenclature — Tariff heading 0802 — Dried
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                  walnut pieces temporarily stored at a temperature of −24 oC)
                                                                                (1999/C 204/13)
                          of 27 April 1999
in Case C-69/97 Commission of the European Communi-                                             (Language of the case: German)
                         ties v SNUA Srl (1)
                                                                            (Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published
           (Arbitration clause — Breach of contract)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                          (1999/C 204/12)                                   In Case C-405/97, reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                                                                            the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Bremen (Germany) for a
                                                                            preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                    (Language of the case: Italian)                         between Mövenpick Deutschland GmbH für das Gastgewerbe v
                                                                            Hauptzollamt Bremen, on the interpretation of tariff heading
                                                                            0802 of the Combined Nomenclature, in the version contained
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published      in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2551/93 of
                   in the European Court Reports)                           10 August 1993, amending Annex I to Council Regulation
                                                                            (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature
In Case C-69/97: Commission of the European Communities                     and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1993 L 241, p. 1)
(Agents: Paolo Stancanelli and Jean-Francis Pasquier, assisted              and on the interpretation of Article 522(3) of Commission
by Alberto Dal Ferro) v SNUA Srl, a company incorporated in                 Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Andrea Guarino, of the Rome               provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
Bar, and Ezio Trampus — application by the Commission of                    No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ
the European Communities under Article 181 of the EC Treaty                 1993 L 253, p. 1) — the Court (First Chamber), composed of
for an order requiring SNUA Srl, first, to reimburse an advance             P. Jann (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
payment of ECU 195 397 made by the Commission for the                       and L. Sevón, Judges, Advocate General: A. Saggio, Registrar:
completion of an integrated system for the collection and                   R. Grass — has given a judgment on 28 April 1999, in which
recycling of solid waste at a private plant, together with interest         it held that:


C 158/20               EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                        5.7.2003
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by the Commission of                               Removal from the register of Case C-339/01 ( 1)
the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
                                                                                (2003/C 158/33)
                         (Case C-218/03)
                         (2003/C 158/32)
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-339/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Vorarlberg): Kurt Beck.
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 May
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by M. Patakia, Legal Adviser, and N. Yerrell, of the         (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
Legal Service.
The Commission claims that the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Council Directive 97/80/EC ( 1) of 15 December 1997 on                     Removal from the register of Case C-343/01 ( 1)
      the burden of proof in cases of discrimination based on
      sex, or in any event by failing to communicate such
      provisions, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its                                  (2003/C 158/34)
      obligations under that directive;
—     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                         from the register of Case C-343/01 (Reference for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          Vorarlberg): Christian Kröll.
Under the third paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty                   (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.
establishing the European Community, a directive is to be
binding, as to the result to be achieved, on each Member State
to which it is addressed.
Under the first paragraph of Article 10 of the Treaty, Member
States are to take all appropriate measures, whether general or
particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out
of the Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions                 Removal from the register of Case C-357/01 ( 1)
of the Community.
                                                                                (2003/C 158/35)
The Hellenic Republic has not contested the fact that it must
take measures to comply with the above-mentioned directive.
                                                                         By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
The Commission has ascertained that the Hellenic Republic                from the register of Case C-357/01 (Reference for a preliminary
has not as yet taken appropriate measures to incorporate the             ruling by the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat of the Land
directive in question fully into the Greek legal system.                 Vorarlberg): Manfred Laaber.
( 1) OJ L 14, 20.1.1998, p. 6.                                           (1 ) OJ C 3, 05.01.2002.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 11 June 1998 in Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 76/464/EEC - Water pollution - Non-transposition)

text:
15.8.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 258/3
European Communities, residing in Brussels, represented              Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June 1996 on the
by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, of the Brussels Bar, with an address            registration of geographical indications and designations
for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Fiduciaire               of origin under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange Ð the Court (Fourth                   Regulation No 2081/92 (OJ L 148 of 21.6.1996, p. 1) Ð
Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the                the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias,
Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and K. M. Ioannou                          President, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and
(Rapporteur), Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R.               M. Wathelet (Presidents of Chambers), J. C. Moitinho de
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 May 1998,               Almeida, P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, J.-P. Puissochet,
in which it:                                                         G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La Pergola,
                                                                     Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 9 June 1998, in which
1. Dismisses the appeal;                                             it has ruled:
2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities                 1. Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
     to pay the costs.                                                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications
                                                                          and designations of origin for agricultural products
                                                                          and foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that,
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                          since its entry into force, a Member State may not, by
                                                                          adopting provisions of national law, alter a
                                                                          designation of origin for which it has requested
                                                                          registration in accordance with Article 17 and protect
                                                                          that designation at national level.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 2. As regards a compound' designation of origin, the
                        of 9 June 1998                                    fact that there is no footnote in the annex to
                                                                          Commission Regulation (EC) No 1107/96 of 12 June
in Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97 (reference for a                    1996 on the registration of geographical indications
preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance,                  and designations of origin under the procedure laid
Dijon): criminal proceedings against Yvon Chiciak and                     down in Article 17 of Regulation No 2081/92
Fromagerie Chiciak, Jean-Pierre Fol, third parties:                       specifying that registration is not sought for one of the
       Syndicat de DeÂfense de l'EÂpoisses and Others (1)                 parts of that designation does not necessarily mean
(Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of                         that each of its constituent parts is protected.
geographical indications and designations of origin for
agricultural products and foodstuffs Ð Exclusive                     (1) OJ C 142 of 10.5.1997.
competence of the Commission Ð Scope of the protection
             of names comprising several terms)
                        (98/C 258/05)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 11 June 1998
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     in Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
                                                                           the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (1)
In Joined Cases C-129/97 and C-130/97: reference to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the                    (Failure to fulfil obligations Ð Directive 76/464/EEC Ð
Tribunal de Grande Instance (Regional Court), Dijon                              Water pollution Ð Non-transposition)
(France), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                                            (98/C 258/06)
proceedings pending before that court against Yvon
Chiciak and Fromagerie Chiciak (C-129/97), Jean-Pierre
Fol (C-130/97), third parties: Syndicat de DeÂfense de                                (Language of the case: Greek)
l'EÂpoisses (C-129/97 and C-130/97), Institut National des
Appellations d'Origine ContrôleÂes (INAO) (C-129/97 and
C-130/97), Association Nationale d'Appellation d'Origine
LaitieÁre FrancËaise (ANAOF) (C-129/97 and C-130/97),                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Laiterie de la Côte SARL and Others (C-130/97) Ð on the                        published in the European Court Reports)
interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of
14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications
and designations of origin for agricultural products and             In Joined Cases C-232/95 and C-233/95: Commission of
foodstuffs (OJ L 208 of 24.7.1992, p. 1) and Commission              the European Communities (Agent: Maria Condou-
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/4               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      15.8.98
Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents: Panagiotis                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Mylonopoulos and Evi Skandalou) Ð application for a
declaration that, by failing to establish programmes                                        (Sixth Chamber)
including quality objectives and setting deadlines for their
implementation in order to reduce the pollution of Lake                                     of 11 June 1998
Vegorrítis and the Soulos River (in Case C-232/95) and of
the Gulf of Pagasaí (in Case C-233/95) by the dangerous              in Case C-283/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
substances within List II of Council Directive 76/464/EEC            the     Finanzgericht     Baden-Württemberg,         Freiburg):
of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous                    Karlheinz Fischer v Finanzamt Donaueschingen (1)
substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the
                                                                     (Tax provisions Ð Sixth VAT Directive Ð Application to
Community (OJ L 129 of 18.5.1976, p. 23), and by
                                                                     the organisation of unlawful games of chance Ð
failing to make discharges into Lake Vegorrítis and the
                                                                                Determination of the taxable amount)
Soulos River (in Case C-232/95) and of the Gulf of
Pagasaí (in Case C-233/95), which are liable to contain
                                                                                (98/C 258/07)
substances within List II, conditional on the grant of prior
authorisation laying down emission standards, the
Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
the EC Treaty and Directive 76/464/EEC, in particular
Articles 2 (in Case C-232/95) and 7 (in Cases C-232/95                             (Language of the case: German)
and C-233/95) thereof Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: R. Schintgen, President of the Second
Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber,
G. F. Mancini and G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), Judges; G.
Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in                       published in the European Court Reports)
which it:
                                                                     In Case C-283/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                     of the EC Treaty by the Finanzgericht Baden-
                                                                     Württemberg, Freiburg (Germany) for a preliminary ruling
1. Declares that, by failing to establish programmes                 in the proceedings pending before that court between
     including quality objectives and setting deadlines for          Karlheinz Fischer and Finanzamt Donaueschingen Ð on
     their implementation in order to reduce the pollution           the interpretation of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/
     of the waters of Lake Vegorrítis and its tributary, the         EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of
     Soulos River, and of the waters of the Gulf of Pagasaí,         the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common
     by the dangerous substances within List II of Council           system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution                 (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1) Ð the Court (Sixth
     caused by certain dangerous substances discharged               Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm, President of the
     into the aquatic environment of the Community, the              Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur), P. J. G. Kapteyn,
     Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations          J. L. Murray and G. Hirsch, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
     under that directive, in particular Article 7 thereof;          Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 June 1998, in which
                                                                     it has ruled:
2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;                       The unlawful operation of a game of chance, in the event
                                                                     roulette, falls within the scope of the Sixth Council
                                                                     Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                     harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
                                                                     to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
                                                                     uniform basis of assessment. Article 13(B)(f) of that
3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                    directive must be interpreted as meaning that a Member
                                                                     State may not impose value added tax on that activity
                                                                     when the corresponding activity carried on by a licensed
                                                                     public casino is exempted.
(1) OJ C 248 of 23.9.1995.
                                                                     (1) OJ C 268 of 14.10.1995.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 2004 in Case C-303/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Peter Haackert v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten

text:
               17.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 94/8

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 4 March 2004
   in Case C-303/02 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Peter Haackert v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten (1)

   (Equality of treatment between men and women - Social security - Early old-age pension for the unemployed - Different pension age according to sex)
   (2004/C 94/14)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-303/02: reference to the Court under Article 234 EC by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between Peter Haackert and the Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Angestellten on the interpretation of Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security (OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Jann, acting for the President of the Fifth Chamber, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 4 March 2004, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The derogation provided for in Article 7(1)(a) of Council Directive 79/7/EEC of 19 December 1978 on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security must be interpreted as applying to a benefit such as early old-age pension on account of unemployment, for which a different age condition by reference to sex has been established, since such a condition may be regarded, within the meaning of that provision, as a consequence which may follow from the enactment in national legislation of a different age condition by reference to sex for the granting of old-age pensions.

      (1)  OJ No C 289, 23. 11. 2002


No C 131 /24             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                 26 . 4 . 97
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                                                                                and Others (M
The applicants are all engaged in business as opticians                                              ( 97/C 131/56 )
and are, as required by law, members of the
Hoofdbedrijfsschap Ambachten (Trades and Crafts                           By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Council ). That body, a public corporation, has imposed a                 Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
levy on the applicants pursuant to rules laid down in that                Communities has ordered the removal of Case T-20/95
regard, the proceeds from which are used for collective                   from the list of cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and
advertising on behalf of the opticians' trade. In their                   Others : Hilde Diekmeier and Others v. Council of the
complaint to the Commission, the applicants maintain                      European Union and Commission of the European
that those ( non-notified ) rules are contrary to Article 92 of           Communities .
the EC Treaty.
                                                                          H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 .
They assert, in opposition to the contested decision, not
only that it infringes procedural requirements but also that
it is not open to the Commission to exempt aid measures
from the obligation to give prior notification, let alone to
do so with retroactive force ('). In addition, the
Commission has failed to take action in respect of an                            Removal from the register of Case T-199/95 (')
infringement of Article 54 ( 3 ) (h ) of the EC Treaty.                                              ( 97/C 131/57)
(') The provision in issue is the de minimis rule contained in the        By order of 22 January 1997 the President of the Third
    Community guidelines on State aid for small and medium               Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First
    sized enterprises ( SMEs ) ( OJ No C 213 , 19 . 8 . 1992 , p. 2 ).
                                                                          Instance of the European Communities has ordered the
                                                                          removal from the register of Case T-199/95 : Nouveau
                                                                          Garage SA and Others v. Commission of the European
                                                                          Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-77/93
                           and Others (')
                           ( 97/C 131/55 )
By order of 4 February 1997, the President of the First
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First                            Removal from the register of Case T-137/96 (')
Instance of the European Communities has ordered the                                                 ( 97/C 131/58 )
removal of Case T-77/93 from the list of Joined Cases
T-77/93 and Others : Werner Hiilseberg and Others v.                      By order of 23 January 1997 the President of the Fifth
Council of the European Union and Commission of the                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
European Communities.                                                     Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
                                                                          Case T-137/96 : Valio Oy v. Commission of the European
(') OJ No C 178 , 18 . 7. 1990.                                           Communities .
                                                                          (') OJ No C 318 , 26 . 10 . 1996 .


title: Case C-33/11: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy (Sixth Directive — Exemptions — Article 15(6) — Exemption for the supply of aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes — Supply of aircraft to an operator who makes them available to such an undertaking — Concept of ‘operating for reward on international routes’ — Charter flights)

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 19 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — A Oy
   (Case C-33/11) (1)

   (Sixth Directive - Exemptions - Article 15(6) - Exemption for the supply of aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes - Supply of aircraft to an operator who makes them available to such an undertaking - Concept of ‘operating for reward on international routes’ - Charter flights)
   2012/C 295/10
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

   A Oy

      Re:

   Reference for preliminary ruling — Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Interpretation of Article 15(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Exemption for certain transactions relating to aircraft used by airlines operating for reward chiefly on international routes — Whether transactions of companies operating chiefly international charter flights to satisfy the needs of businesses and private individuals — Delivery of aircraft to an operator which does not itself operate for reward chiefly on international routes, but which makes the aircraft available to such an operator.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The wording ‘operating for reward on international routes’ within the meaning of Article 15(6) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, as amended by Council Directive 92/111/EEC of 14 December 1992 must be interpreted as encompassing also international charter flights to meet demand from undertakings and private persons.

               2.

               Article 15(6) of Directive 77/388, as amended by Directive 92/111, must be interpreted as meaning that the exemption for which it provides also applies to the supply of an aircraft to an operator who is not itself an ‘airline operating for reward chiefly on international routes’ within the meaning of that provision but which acquires that aircraft for the purposes of exclusive use thereof by such an undertaking.

               3.

               The circumstances referred to by the national court, namely the fact that the purchaser of the aircraft passes on the charge corresponding to its use to an individual who is its shareholder and who uses that aircraft essentially for his own business and/or private purposes, with the airline also having the opportunity to use it for other flights, are not such as to affect the answer to the second question.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 19.3.2011.


title: Case F-86/13: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Robert van de Water v Parliament (Civil service — Rights and obligations of officials — Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service — Article 16 of the Staff Regulations — Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution — Prohibition)

text:
               1.12.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 431/47

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 October 2014 — Robert van de Water v Parliament
   (Case F-86/13) (1)

   ((Civil service - Rights and obligations of officials - Declaration of intention to engage in an occupational activity after leaving the service - Article 16 of the Staff Regulations - Compatibility with the legitimate interests of the institution - Prohibition))
   (2014/C 431/75)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Robert van de Water (Grimbergen, Belgium) (represented by: P. Bentley QC, barrister, and R. Bäuerle, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Chemaï and M. Dean, Agents)

      Re:

   The application to annul the decision prohibiting the applicant from taking up an appointment as an adviser to the Prime Minister of Ukraine for a period of two years as from the date of termination of his functions with the European Parliament

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr van de Water is to bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the Parliament.

      (1)  OJ C 336, 16/11/2013, p. 31.


title: Case F-118/13: Action brought on 9 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/53

         Action brought on 9 December 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-118/13)
   2014/C 52/103
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: F. Frabetti, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the Career Development Report relating to the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002 and annulment of the merit points awarded during the 2003 promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul the Career Development Report (CDR) of the applicant for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               —

               in the alternative, annul the applicant’s merit points from the 2003 promotion exercise since they are not at the level of the average points awarded to staff of his grade during the same exercise;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.