title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sixth Tax Chamber of the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles by judgment of that court of 12 June 1998 in the case of Georges Van der Zwalmen and Elisabeth Massart against the Belgian State (Case C-229/98)

text:
15.8.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 258/29
Treaty as well as under Articles 12, 26 and 29 of Directive            freedom of Community architects to provide their
71/305/EEC (1) as amended by Directive 89/440/EEC (2)                  services (by requiring proof that the main architect
and Articles 8, 11, 22 and 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC (3).              was a member of the Architects' Association), the
                                                                       DeÂpartement du Nord failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                       under Article 59 of the EC Treaty.
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð Infringement of Article 12(5) of Directive 71/305/EEC
                                                                       and of Article 11(5) of Directive 93/37/EEC: during
Ð Infringement of Article 12 of Directive 71/305/EEC                   the period 1993 to 1995, the Nord-Pas de Calais
    and of Article 11 of Directive 93/37/EEC: during the               Region did not publish any award notice.
    period 1993 to 1995, the pre-notification procedure
    was only rarely followed by the Nord-Pas de Calais
    Region. So far as concerns the DeÂpartement du Nord,           Ð Infringement of Article 8(3) of Directive 93/37/EEC:
    the Commission found no pre-notification notice                    the French authorities refused to forward to the
    published in the Official Journal of the European                  Commission the minutes of the procedures in issue.
    Communities, Supplement S, during the same period.
                                                                   (1) OJ L 185 of 16.8. 1971, p. 5.
                                                                   (2) OJ L 210 of 21.7. 1989, p. 1.
Ð Infringement of Article 30 of Directive 93/37/EEC: the           (3) OJ L 199 of 9.8. 1993, p. 54.
    Commission acknowledges that the taking into
    account of employment-related projects may be
    considered to be a valid additional criterion, but only
    as a condition of performance. By expressly presenting
    an employment-related condition as a criterion for
    awarding contracts, the French authorities have
    infringed Article 30.                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sixth Tax
                                                                   Chamber of the Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles by judgment of
                                                                   that court of 12 June 1998 in the case of Georges Van der
                                                                    Zwalmen and Elisabeth Massart against the Belgian State
Ð Infringement of Article 22 of Directive 93/37/EEC: in
    notices which appeared in the Official Journal of                                     (Case C-229/98)
    18 February 1995, the phrase limited number of                                        (98/C 258/49)
    candidates' (Heading 13), gives the impression that
    that number could be less than 5.
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by the Sixth Tax Chamber of the
Ð Infringement of Article 29(2) of Directive 71/305/EEC            Cour d'Appel de Bruxelles (Court of Appeal, Brussels) by
    and of Article 30(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC: in most           judgment of 12 June 1998, which was received at the
    of the notices, the contracting authorities, in order to       Court Registry on 26 June 1998, for a preliminary ruling
    indicate the award criteria, resorted to the method of         in the case of Georges Van der Zwalmen and Elisabeth
    award by reference to the Public Contracts Code'.             Massart v Belgian State, on the following questions:
    However, a general reference to a provision of
    domestic legislation cannot fulfil the obligation to
    advertise.                                                     Must Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and
                                                                   Immunities of the European Communities be interpreted
                                                                   as:
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty: the
    technical specifications selected by the contracting           (1) prohibiting the Member States, under fiscal
    authorities could have the effect of favouring national             legislation applicable to personal tax, from creating,
    undertakings who are familiar with the system of                    for the taxation of married couples and their
    quality certification and which are used to providing               children, a distinct category of taxpayers by reason of
    documents or services in accordance with the                        the fact that one of them is a European official,
    references laid down in the contract notice. Moreover,              receiving as such earned income which is exempted
    undertakings established in other Member States are                 under a convention, without reservation as to
    not encouraged to submit tenders inasmuch as they                   progressive rates of tax, and from making for that
    do not have the means of knowing beforehand                         category two separate assessments whereby the tax is
    whether their qualifications comply with those                      determined for each of them on the basis of his own
    technical particulars in the absence of any equivalent              income and that of his children which is available to
    qualification.                                                      him by operation of law, whilst at the same time,
                                                                        where appropriate, each remains jointly and severally
                                                                        liable for the tax debt of the household (see
Ð Infringement of Article 59 of the EC Treaty;                          Article 295 of the 1964 Income Tax Code and
    infringement of Article 26 of Directive 71/305/EEC: by              Article 394 of the 1992 Income Tax Code),
    imposing restrictions in a number of notices on the                 whereas, for married couples in which one spouse
 ---pagebreak--- C 258/30             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  15.8.98
     does not receive taxable earned income or receives             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
     insignificant earned income, under national law the            Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (Administrative
     assessment is made in the name of both spouses, and,           Court, Chalons en Champagne) (First Chamber) by
     with the exception of earned income, the income of             judgment of that court of 23 June 1998 in the case of
     the spouses is aggregated with the income of the               Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
     spouse who receives more, and, where the income of                                       Solidarity
     a spouse is less than 30 % of the aggregate earned                                    (Case C-238/98)
     income of both spouses, there is attributed to him a
                                                                                (98/C 258/50)
     portion of the earned income of the other spouse
     which, together with his own earned income, enables
     him to attain 30 % of that income, subject to a                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     maximum of BFR 270 000 (indexed), which may                    European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal
     result, by virtue of the progressive nature of tax rates,      Administratif de Chalons en Champagne (First Chamber)
     in a reduction of the tax payable by the spouses?              of 23 June 1998, which was received at the Court Registry
                                                                    on 7 July 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                    Hugo Fernando Hocsman v Minister for Employment and
(2) as prohibiting a Member State from refusing, by
                                                                    Solidarity on the following question:
     recourse to the separate taxation described under
     No 1, the benefit of the marital allowance for the             The Tribunal Administratif de Chalons en Champagne
     spouse of a European official, with the exception of           (First Chamber) seeks a preliminary ruling on the question
     those who declare that they receive earned income              whether an equivalence accorded by one Member State
     which is exempted under a convention, without                  means that another Member State is required to verify, on
     reservation as to progressive rates of taxation, of less       the basis of Article 52 of the Treaty of Rome, whether
     than BFR 270 000 (indexed), who does not receive               the experience and qualifications evidenced thereby
     non-exempted income of a sufficient amount for the             correspond to those required for the award of national
     benefit of the marital allowance to be totally offset          diplomas and other formal qualifications, in particular
     by the tax due by virtue of the aggregation of the             in the case where the person benefiting from such
     spouses' income and the progressive nature of the tax          equivalence holds a diploma providing evidence of
     rates'?                                                        specialist training acquired in a Member State and
                                                                    included in the scope of a directive concerning the mutual
                                                                    recognition of diplomas.
                                                   COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           (United Kingdom), represented by Kevin F. Bodley,
                       of 25 June 1998                              Solicitor, and Konstantinos Adamantopoulos, of the
                                                                    Athens Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
in Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              the Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 12 Boulevard de la
plc and Others and British Midland Airways Ltd v                    Foire, supported in Case T-371/94 by Kingdom of
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                   Sweden, (Agent: Staffan Sandström), Kingdom of Norway,
(State aid Ð Air transport Ð Airline company in a critical          (Agent: Margit Tveiten), Maersk Air I/S, established in
financial situation Ð Authorisation for an increase in              Dragùer (Denmark), and Maersk Air Ltd, established in
                            capital)                                Birmingham (United Kingdom), represented by Roderic
                                                                    O'Sullivan and Philip Wareham, Solicitors, having an
                        (98/C 258/51)                               address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                    Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, and in
               (Language of the cases: English)                     both cases, Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: Peter Biering)
                                                                    and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
In Joined Cases T-371/94 and T-394/94: British Airways              Ireland (Agents: John E. Collins and Richard Plender) v
plc, established in Hounslow (United Kingdom),                      Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
Scandinavian Airlines System Denmark-Norway-Sweden,                 Nicholas Khan, Ben Smulders and Ami Barav), supported
established in Stockholm, Koninklijke Luchtvaart                    by French Republic (Agents: Marc Perrin de Brichambaut,
Maatschappij NV, established in Amstelveen (the                     Edwige Belliard, Catherine de Salins and Jean-Marc
Netherlands), Air UK Ltd, established in Stansted (United           Belorgey) and Compagnie Nationale Air France,
Kingdom), Euralair International, established in Bonneuil           established in Paris, represented by Olivier d'Ormesson, of
(France), TAT European Airlines, established in Tours               the Paris Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
(France), represented by Romano Subiotto, Solicitor, with           at the Chambers of Jacques Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of             application for the annulment of Commission Decision 94/
Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d'Eich, and British               653/EC of 27 July 1994 concerning the notified capital
Midland Airways Ltd, established in Castle Donington                increase of Air France (OJ L 254 of 30.9. 1994, p. 73) Ð


title: ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 20 February 1997 in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co. KG and Others v. Commission of the European Communities (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)

text:
10 . 5 . 97            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 142/ 17
                                                         COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 European Communities on 13 February 1997 by Juana de
                      of 20 February 1997                                 la Cruz Elena Vela Palacios, residing at Casablanca
                                                                          ( Morocco ), represented by Jaime Creus, of the Barcelona
in Case T-141/96: Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.                         Bar, with chambers at 377, Calle Consejo de Ciento,
KG and Others v. Commission of the European                               Barcelona .
                          Communities (')
                  (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            The applicant claims that the Court should annul the final
                            ( 97/C 142/36 )                               decision in Disciplinary Proceedings No 3/ 1995
                                                                          concerning the justification for her residential spa
               (Language of the case: German)                             treatment and, in particular, to annul the disciplinary
                                                                          measure of relegation in step, and order the
                                                                          reimbursement of the amount of remuneration withheld .
In Case T-141 /96 : Bergpracht Milchwerk GmbH & Co.
                                                                          Accordingly, the Court should annul all other financial
KG, established at Tettnang ( Germany), Hochland Reich,
                                                                          consequences of that disciplinary measure in respect of the
Summer      &    Co.      KG .,     established  at    Heimenkirch
                                                                          applicant's salary and all the legal consequences which the
( Germany ), Milchwerk Crailsheim eG, established at
                                                                          final decision taken in Disciplinary Proceedings No 3/ 1995
Crailsheim ( Germany ), Milchwerk Geislingen eG,
                                                                          may have produced.
established at Geislingen/Steige ( Germany ), Wendelstein
Käsewerk Molkerei Ziegenhain GmbH & Co . KG,
established at Bad Aibling ( Germany ) and Zentral-Molke                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
rei Aurich GmbH, established at Aurich ( Germany ),
represented by Jürgen Salzwedel and Michael Loschelder,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                          The applicant challenges the disciplinary measure of
Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, against                             relegation to category C, grade 4, step 2, imposed by way
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents: J. L.                    of final decision in Disciplinary Proceedings No 3/1995
Buhigues and U. Wölker) — application for the annulment                   concerning residential spa treatment in Ischia ( Italy). The
of Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 1107/96 of 12 June                     disciplinary measure was imposed as a result of the failure
1996 on the registration of geographical indications and                  to account for the days spent under the abovementioned
designations of origin under the procedure laid down in                   treatment .
Article 17 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2081/92 ( OJ
No L 148 , 21 . 6 . 1996, p. 1 ) in so far as concerns the
registration of feta as a protected designation of origin —               In this regard, the applicant maintains that the only
the Court of First Instance ( Fifth Chamber), composed of                 supporting documents in her possession, the medical
R. García-Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger,                  report from the spa establishment and the invoices for the
Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 20 February                  treatment undergone, were sent to the Medical Officer for
                                                                          the Sickness and Accident Insurance Scheme in accordance
1997, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                          with the necessary procedure for the reimbursement of
                                                                          expenses incurred.
1 . Jurisdiction is declined in Case T-141 /96 Bergpracht
     Milchwerk     GmbH           &   Co.    KG   and    Others   v.
     Commission of the European Communities in order to                   The applicant further alleges that essential administrative
     enable the Court of Justice to rule on the application               procedural requirements were infringed inasmuch as the
     for annulment.                                                       contested decision was adopted without a hearing having
                                                                          first been held and without an adequate statement of
2.   The costs are reserved.                                              reasons sufficient to justify the appointing authority's
                                                                          departure from the disciplinary measure proposed in the
(') OJ No C 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 .                                         opinion of the Disciplinary Board. In the alternative, the
                                                                          applicant points out that the expert opinion contains a
                                                                          paragraph which expresses the views of the Chair of the
                                                                          Disciplinary Board, which constitutes an abuse of the
                                                                          powers granted to him .
Action brought on 13 February 1997 by Juana de la
Cruz Elena Vela Palacios against Economic and Social
                                Committee                                 As regards the substance, the applicant claims that there
                                                                          has been an error of assessment of the facts since the
                           ( Case T-30/97 )                               number of days of absence which have not been accounted
                                                                          for is incorrect and that there has been a breach of the
                             ( 97/C 142/37)
                                                                          principle that the disciplinary measure imposed should be
                                                                          proportional to the conduct in respect of which it is
                (Language of the case: Spanish)                           imposed.
An action against the Economic and Social Committee
was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht Köln by order of that court of 27 October 1997 in the case of Frans Gschwind against Finanzamt Aachen-Aussenstadt (Case C-391/97)

text:
C 7/10                  EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   10. 1. 98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Council              Reference      for    a     preliminary   ruling    by     the
of State by decisions of that court of 29 October 1997 in             Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Vienna) by order of that court of
the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and SocieÂteÂ               27 October 1997 in the case of STUAG Bau-
Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut national             Aktiengesellschaft against the State Government of
des appellations d'origine; SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet,                          Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung)
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses, Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ                                     (Case C-390/97)
Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Maurice Girard Ð
Interveners: Institut national des appellations d'origine and                                   (98/C 7/23)
                    SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT
            (Joined Cases C-388/97 and C-389/97)
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                            (98/C 7/22)                               European        Communities        by   order      of      the
                                                                      Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Administrative Court), Vienna, of
                                                                      27 October 1997, received at the Court Registry on
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                17 November 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
European Communities by decisions of the French Council               STUAG Bau-Aktiengesellschaft v. State Government of
of State of 29 October 1997, which were received at the               Carinthia (Kärntner Landesregierung) on the following
Court Registry on 17 November 1997 for a preliminary                  question:
ruling in the following cases: Fromagerie Philipona and
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Franc-Comtoise Ð Intervener: Institut            Does Article 33 (1) of the Sixth Council Directive (77/388/
national des appellations d'origine (Case C-388/97);                  EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws
SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie Lincet, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie d'Epoisses,         of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð
Yves Chiciak, SocieÂteÂ Forster SaÁrl, SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie           Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Maurice Girard Ð Interveners: Institut national des                   assessment (1) preclude, on the ground that it is in the
appellations d'origine and SocieÂteÂ Fromagerie AFT (Case             nature of a turnover tax, the maintenance in force of a tax
C-389/97), on the following questions:                                which is payable in a Bundesland (regional state) of a
                                                                      Member State of the European Communities in respect of
1. Following the entry into force            of the Council           each calendar year by all undertakings directly or
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14       July 1992 (1) and        indirectly involved in tourism which have their registered
     prior to the entry into force of         Regulation (EC)         office or a place of business within that regional state, and
     No 535/97 of 17 March 1997 (2),          did the national        the amount of which is essentially proportional to the
     authorities lose all competence          in matters of           turnover achieved by the undertaking in that regional state
     designations of origin?                                          within a calendar year, but where the rate of contribution
                                                                      varies according to the degree of benefit which the
                                                                      legislature deems the commercial sector in question
2. May Article 1 (2) of Regulation (EEC) No 535/97 of                 (occupational group) to derive from tourism, and where
     17 March 1997 be interpreted as retroactively                    no provision is made for the deduction of input tax?
     conferring competence on the national authorities to
     amend the characteristics of a designation which was             (1) OJ L 145, 13. 6. 1977, p. 1.
     in the course of being registered at Community level
     under the procedure laid down in Article 17 of
     Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992?
3. In the event that the national authorities have retained
     a subsidiary competence, does that competence enable             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
     them to amend:                                                   Köln by order of that court of 27 October 1997 in the
                                                                      case of Frans Gschwind against Finanzamt Aachen-
     Ð the conditions for production of manufacture of a                                        Aussenstadt
          product covered by a designation which is in the                                   (Case C-391/97)
          course of being registered (Case C-388/97),
                                                                                (98/C 7/24)
     Ð the name of a designation (Case C-389/97)?
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the        European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
    protection of geographical indications and designations of        Köln (Finance Court, Cologne) of 27 October 1997,
    origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 208,        received at the Court Registry on 17 November 1997, for
    24. 7. 1992, p. 1).
                                                                      a preliminary ruling in the case of Frans Gschwind v.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 535/97 of 17 March 1997
    amending Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 on the protection of         Finanzamt Aachen-Aussenstadt on the following question:
    geographical indications and designations of origin for
    agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ L 83, 25. 3. 1997,
                                                                      Is it contrary to Article 48 of the EC Treaty for
    p. 3).
                                                                      Paragraph 1.3, second sentence, in conjunction with
                                                                      Paragraph 1a.1.2 of the Einkommensteuergesetz (German
                                                                      law on income tax; EStG') to provide that a Netherlands
 ---pagebreak--- 10. 1. 98             EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 7/11
national deriving taxable income from employment in                         Removal from the register of C-376/95 (1)
Germany without having a permanent residence or usual                                        (98/C 7/28)
abode there and his spouse, who is not permanently
separated from him and likewise has no permanent
residence or usual abode in Germany and earns income               By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
abroad, are not to be treated as persons subject to                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
unlimited taxation for the purposes of applying                    removal from the register of Case C-376/95 (reference for
Paragraph 26.1, sentence 1, EStG (joint assessment) on the         a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova):
ground that the combined income of the spouses for the             Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v. Amministrazione delle
calendar year in question does not fall to at least 90 %           Finanze dello Stato.
within the German EStG, or that the income not subject
to the German EStG amounts to more than DM 24 000?                 (1) OJ C 16, 20. 1. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-229/95 (1)                           Removal from the register of C-19/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/29)
                          (98/C 7/25)
                                                                   By order of 20 October 1997, the President of the Court
By order of 24 September 1997, the President of the Court          of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             removal from the register of Case C-19/96 (Reference for
removal from the register of Case C-229/95 (reference for          a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Travail (Labour
a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Wiesbaden):           Court) Nivelles): Vito Casano v. Institut National
Simone Moll v. Berhane Mesghena.                                   d'Assurance Maladie InvaliditeÂ, Union Nationale des
                                                                   MutualiteÂs Libres.
(1) OJ C 229, 2. 9. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 77, 16. 3. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-333/95 (1)
                          (98/C 7/26)                                        Removal from the register of C-86/96 (1)
                                                                                (98/C 7/30)
By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the             By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
removal from the register of Case C-333/95 (reference for          of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): F.lli          removal from the register of Case C-86/96 (reference for a
Carli SpA and Others v. Amministrazione delle Finanze              preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
delle Stato.                                                       Prima Civile): Palmera SpA v. Amministrazione delle
                                                                   Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.
                                                                   (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.
         Removal from the register of C-348/95 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of C-87/96 (1)
                          (98/C 7/27)
                                                                                (98/C 7/31)
By order of 7 October 1997, the President of the Court of          By order of 10 October 1997, the President of the Court
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the                of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
removal from the register of Case C-348/95 (reference for          removal from the register of Case C-87/96 (reference for a
a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal                     preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova, Sezione
Administrativo): FaÂbrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda. v.         Prima Civile): Cesare Regnoli & Figlio Srl v.
MinisteÂrio PuÂblico and Fazenda PuÂblica.                         Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato.
(1) OJ C 351, 30. 12. 1995.                                        (1) OJ C 133, 4. 5. 1996.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 6 March 2002 in Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Application for revision of a judgment — New fact — None — Inadmissible)

text:
C 131/16               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                           1.6.2002
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President of the Chamber, J. Pirrung
                                                                           and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
                        of 6 March 2002                                    the Registrar, has given a judgment on 13 March 2002, in
                                                                           which it:
in Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)                                1.    Annuls the decision of the selection board of 24 February 2000
                                                                                not to admit the applicant to the tests of internal competition
                                                                                COM/TB/99;
(Officials — Application for revision of a judgment — New
                 fact — None — Inadmissible)
                                                                           2.    Dismisses the remainder of the application;
                         (2002/C 131/29)                                   3.    Orders the Commission to pay the costs.
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
In Case T-77/99 REV: Girish Ojha, official of the Commission
of the European Communities, residing in Korbeek-Lo
(Belgium), represented by A. Ottati, lawyer, v Commission of
the European Communities (Agent: C. Berardis-Kayser) —
application for revision of the judgment of the Court of First
Instance of 6 March 2001 in Case T-77/99 Ojha v Commission                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
[2001] ECR-SC I-A-61 and II-293 — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President                                      of 13 March 2002
of the Chamber, V. Tiili and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2002, in which it:
                                                                           in Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and T-364/
                                                                           00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón and Others v Commission
1.    Dismisses the application for revision as inadmissible;
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
2.    Orders the applicant for revision to pay the costs.
                                                                           (Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to
                                                                                competition — Requisite professional experience)
(1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
                                                                                (2002/C 131/31)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                           In Case T-Joined Cases T-357/00, T-361/00, T-363/00 and
                        of 13 March 2002                                   T-364/00: Justina Martı́nez Alarcón, Antonio Cherenti, Luigia
                                                                           Dricot, Sophie Van Weyenbergh, officials of the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities, residing in Thuin (Belgium),
in Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal v Commission of the                          Overijse (Belgium) and Tervuren (Belgium), represented by
                   European Communities (1)                                C. Mourato, avocat, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                                                                           against Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
(Officials — Internal competition — Non-admission to the                   H. Tserepa-Lacombe and F. Clotuche-Duvieusart) — appli-
       competition — Professional experience required)                     cation for annulment of decisions rejecting the applicants’
                                                                           candidature for internal competition COM/TB/99 — the Court
                                                                           of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of R.M. Moura
                         (2002/C 131/30)
                                                                           Ramos, President, J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Chris-
                                                                           tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on
                   (Language of the case: French)                          13 March 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           In Case T-364/00:
In Case T-139/00: Laurent Bal, residing in Walhain (Belgium),
represented by I. Cooreman and T. Delvaux, lawyers, v                      1.    The decision of the selection board of 28 January 2000
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: J. Currall)                       rejecting Ms Van Weyenbergh’s application to internal compe-
— application inter alia for annulment of the decision rejecting                 tition COM/TB/99 and the decision of the appointing authority
the applicant’s candidacy for internal competition COM/TB/                       of 9 October 2000 rejecting the complaint lodged by the
99 — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed                      applicant are annulled.


title: Case C-84/07: Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/21

         Action brought on 15 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-84/07)
   (2007/C 95/37)
   Language of the case: Greek
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: G. Zavvos and H. Støvlbæk, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that, by the acts specified hereunder, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 3, 4(1)(b) and 12 of Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC (1);

               —

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   According to the Commission, the Hellenic Republic refuses to consider and to recognise certain optical diplomas issued by an Italian educational establishment on the basis of a franchise agreement concluded with a Greek educational establishment.
   The Commission states that the basic issue that the Greek authorities can determine is whether or not the diploma gives access to the profession concerned and that the question whether or not the diploma in question has been issued on the basis of a franchise agreement is not relevant for the purposes of its recognition by the Greek authorities. Directive 92/51 makes no such distinction. The Commission also states that the present dispute does not concern Articles 149 and 150 EC, or Article 16 of the Greek Constitution, in that the diplomas have been lawfully issued by Italian educational establishments, not by Greek establishments with which the former have concluded franchise agreements for the award of qualifications.
   On those grounds, the refusal of the Greek authorities to consider and to recognise those Italian diplomas constitutes an infringement of Articles 3 and 12 of Directive 92/51. Furthermore, in the Commission's submission, and as is clear from substantiated complaints, the Greek authorities required the complainants who applied for recognition of the optical diploma obtained in Italy to undergo a conversion course. The Commission maintains that such a course infringes Article 4(1)(b) of Directive 92/51, pursuant to which the Greek authorities must allow foreign applicants to choose between the conversion course and an aptitude test.

      (1)  OJ L 209, 24.7.1992, p. 25.


title: Case C-42/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Taxation — Common system of value added tax — Letting of immovable property — Supply of electricity, heating, water and refuge collection — Agreements between the landlord and the suppliers of those goods and services — Supplies provided to the tenant considered to be provided by the landlord — Service charges — Determination of the taxable amount — Possibility of including service charges in the taxable amount of rental services — Transaction composed of a single supply or several independent supplies)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/11

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Poland)) — Minister Finansów v Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie
   (Case C-42/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Taxation - Common system of value added tax - Letting of immovable property - Supply of electricity, heating, water and refuge collection - Agreements between the landlord and the suppliers of those goods and services - Supplies provided to the tenant considered to be provided by the landlord - Service charges - Determination of the taxable amount - Possibility of including service charges in the taxable amount of rental services - Transaction composed of a single supply or several independent supplies))
   (2015/C 198/14)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Minister Finansów

      Defendant: Wojskowa Agencja Mieszkaniowa w Warszawie

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 14(1), 15(1) and 24(1) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, as amended by Council Directive 2009/162/EU of 22 December 2009, must be interpreted as meaning that, in the context of the letting of immovable property, the provision of electricity, heating and water and refuse collection, provided by third-party suppliers for the tenant directly using those goods and services must be regarded as being supplied by the landlord where he has concluded agreements for the provision of those supplies and simply passes on the costs thereof to the tenant.

               2.

               That directive must be interpreted as meaning that the letting of immovable property and the provision of water, electricity and heating as well as refuse collection accompanying that letting must, in principle, be regarded as constituting several distinct and independent supplies which need to be assessed separately for VAT purposes, unless the elements of the transaction, including those indicating the economic reason for concluding the contract, are so closely linked that they form, objectively, a single, indivisible economic supply which it would be artificial to split.

               3.

               It is for the national court to make the necessary assessments taking into account all the circumstances of the letting and the accompanying supplies and, in particular, the content of the agreement itself.

      (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case C-138/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               15.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/14

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Berlin (Germany) lodged on 19 March 2013 — Naime Dogan v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-138/13)
   2013/C 171/28
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgericht Berlin

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Naime Dogan

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 November 1970 to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey for the transitional stage of the Association (Additional Protocol) preclude a provision of national law which was introduced for the first time after the abovementioned provisions had come into force and which makes the first entry of a member of the family of a Turkish national who enjoys the legal status under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol conditional on the requirement that, prior to entry, the family member can demonstrate the ability to communicate, in a basic way, in the German language?

               2.

               Does the first subparagraph of Article 7(2) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) preclude the provision of national law mentioned in Question 1?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12.


title: Case T-202/15: Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/45

         Action brought on 23 April 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)
   (Case T-202/15)
   (2015/C 198/62)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘WORLD OF BINGO’ — Application for registration No 12 669 396

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 in Case R 1899/2014-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-148/08: Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-STABILO Schwanhäußer (design of instruments for writing)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/36

         Action brought on 21 April 2008 — Beifa Group v OHIM — Schwan-STABILO Schwanhäußer (design of instruments for writing)
   (Case T-148/08)
   (2008/C 142/65)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Beifa Group Co. Ltd (formerly Ningbo Beifa Group Co. Ltd) (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: R. Davis, Barrister and N. Cordell, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Schwan-STABILO Schwanhäußer GmbH & Co KG (Heroldsberg, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 January 2008 in case R 1352/2006-3;

               —

               remit the matter to the Invalidity Division for further consideration of the issues raised in the application for invalidity; and

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: A design for the product ‘instruments for writing’ — registered Community design No 352315-0007

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: A national figurative mark representing an instrument for writing registered on 14 December 2006 for goods in class 16 — registration No DE 30045470

      Decision of the Invalidity Division: Invalidity of the challenged design

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 as the Third Board of Appeal applied the wrong test to determine whether there was the requisite use of the trade mark by the applicant; the Third Board of Appeal should have considered whether the use of the trade mark by the other party to the proceedings has been both within the meaning of Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 and German national law; in reaching its decision under Article 25(1)(e) of Council Regulation No 6/2002 the Third Board of Appeal should have applied the test for trade mark infringement upheld under German national law.


title: Case C-503/07 P: Order of the Court of 8 April 2008 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co KG, Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Directive 2003/87/EC — Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading — Integrated pollution prevention and reduction — Federal Republic of Germany — Allocation of allowances — Period 2008-2012 — Conditions — Individual concern — Inadmissibility — Right to be heard by a court — Right to a fair hearing)

text:
               7.6.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/10

         Order of the Court of 8 April 2008 — Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH v Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co KG, Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-503/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Directive 2003/87/EC - Scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading - Integrated pollution prevention and reduction - Federal Republic of Germany - Allocation of allowances - Period 2008-2012 - Conditions - Individual concern - Inadmissibility - Right to be heard by a court - Right to a fair hearing)
   (2008/C 142/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH (represented by: H. Posser and S. Altenschmidt, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Fels-Werke GmbH, Spenner-Zement GmbH & Co KG, Commission of the European Communities (represented by: U. Wölker, Agent)
   Re:
   Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 11 September 2007 in Case T-28/07 Fels-Werke and Others v Commission, by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible the action seeking partial annulment of the Commission Decision of 29 November 2006 concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the Federal Republic of Germany for the period from 2008 to 2012 in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ 2003 L 275, p. 32) — Requirement to be individually concerned by the contested decision — Right to be heard by a court and right to a fair hearing
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Saint-Gobain Glass Deutschland GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 64, 8.3.2008.


               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/1

         (2009/C 19/01)
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 6, 10.1.2009

   Past publications

      OJ C 327, 20.12.2008

      OJ C 313, 6.12.2008

      OJ C 301, 22.11.2008

      OJ C 285, 8.11.2008

      OJ C 272, 25.10.2008

      OJ C 260, 11.10.2008

   These texts are available on:

               EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of  15 December 2005  in Case C-33/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2000/60/EC — Community action in the field of water policy — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               25.2.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/9

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Sixth Chamber)
   of 15 December 2005
   in Case C-33/05: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2000/60/EC - Community action in the field of water policy - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2006/C 48/18)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-33/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Hottiaux and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: M. Wimmer) — ACTION for a declaration of failure to fulfil obligations pursuant to Article 226 EC, brought on 31 January 2005 — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of J. Malenovský, President of the Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet and A. Ó. Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 December 2005, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt within the period prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy, as regards the Brussels-Capital Region, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.


title: Case T-307/14: Action brought on 30 April 2014  — TechnoCompound v Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/56

         Action brought on 30 April 2014 — TechnoCompound v Commission
   (Case T-307/14)
   2014/C 223/58
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: TechnoCompound GmbH (Bad Sobernheim, Germany) (represented by: D. Greinacher, J. Martin and B. Scholtka, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 263 TFEU, the Commission’s decision to initiate the formal investigation procedure in relation to the support for the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources and from mine gas in accordance with the Gesetz für den Vorrang erneuerbarer Energien (Law for the priority of renewable energy sources, ‘EEG’) and the reduced EEG-surcharge for energy-intensive users against the Federal Republic of Germany — State aid SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) of 18 December 2013, published in the Official Journal of the EU on 7 February 2014 (OJ 2014 C 37, p. 73), in so far as the Commission classifies the special compensation regime pursuant to Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the EEG as State aid within the meaning of Article 107 TFEU;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs necessarily incurred pursuant to Article 87(3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law: Infringement of Article 107 TFEU
               The applicant claims that the Commission wrongly classified the support for renewable energies by way of the surcharge system and the special compensation regime to reduce the EEG-surcharge as aid and therefore should not have initiated the formal investigation procedure.

                           —

                           In this connection, the applicant contends that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment in the preliminary assessment of the issue of whether the special compensation regime constitutes aid, since the special compensation regime, as an exception to the EEG-surcharge, does not grant any advantage which energy-intensive users would not have obtained under normal market conditions.

                           —

                           The applicant also claims that no State resources are affected. Since the proceeds from the EEG-surcharge already did not constitute State resources, no State resources could be affected even by the exception for energy-intensive users.

                           —

                           The applicant further claims that the special compensation regime also does not distort competition. At most, it establishes the competitive conditions which exist without the EEG-surcharge.

               2.

               Second plea in law: Infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations
               The applicant claims that, by adopting the decision, the Commission also infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations. The German scheme to support renewable energy has already been subject to a thorough State aid assessment. In that assessment, the Commission in 2002 concluded that a transfer of State resources is not linked to that scheme. Since the 2012 EEG does not, in this respect, contain any substantial amendments to the legal position at the time, the economic operators concerned ought not to have expected a re-examination, but should have been entitled to rely on the continuance of the scheme.

               3.

               Third plea in law: Misuse of powers
               Lastly, the applicant considers that the Commission misused the discretion afforded to it under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU. By initiating the investigation procedure, the Commission is primarily pursuing the objective of fundamentally harmonising the support for renewable electricity. That fundamental objective is also evidenced by the new draft guidelines for environmental and energy aid, in which the Commission for the first time lays down detailed schemes to support renewable energies. In order to work towards a harmonisation, the Commission would, however, have to apply the procedure for approximating laws pursuant to Articles 116 and 117 TFEU, which is laid down for that purpose.


title: Case T-167/14: Action brought on 13 March 2014  — Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission

text:
               14.7.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/13

         Action brought on 13 March 2014 — Søndagsavisen A/S v European Commission
   (Case T-167/14)
   2014/C 223/17
   Language of the case: Danish

      Parties

      Applicant: Søndagsavisen A/S (Søborg, Denmark) (represented by: M. Honoré and C. Fornø)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Commission’s decision of 20 November 2013 not to raise objections to Denmark’s production and innovation aid for written media (SA.36366);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant, a competitor of the recipients of the aid, submits that the Commission ought to have found that there was doubt as to the compatibility of the reported measure with the internal market and that the Commission therefore ought to have adopted a decision to open the formal investigation procedure: see Article 108(2) TFEU and Article 4(4) of the procedural regulation. (1) In failing to do so, the Commission has disregarded the applicant’s procedural rights under Article 108(2) TFEU.
   In support of the argument that there was reasonable doubt as to the scheme’s compatibility with the internal market, the applicant relies on three pleas in law:

               —

               the Commission failed entirely to examine whether the scheme was suitable for ensuring the expansion of news content provided to the Danish people, thereby supporting the democratic process;

               —

               the contested decision in any event lacks a sufficient statement of reasons with regard to suitability; and

               —

               the Commission failed to examine the competition-distorting effects of the scheme in the relationship between free newspapers and newspapers sold for money.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the application of Article 108 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).


title: Case C-308/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
C 303/8               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.10.2001
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties                3.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
Tribunals, London Tribunal Centre, by direction of that                      be held to affect trade between Member States only if it
court of 24 July 2001, in the case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd,                  has, or is capable of having, an appreciable effect on trade
2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd, 3) Consumer Electronics                      between Member States? If so, what are the criteria for
Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct Vision Rentals Ltd,                         determining whether or not a measure has such an effect?
5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle Insurance plc
      against Commissioners of Customs and Excise
                                                                        4.   Is Article 87(1) EC to be interpreted so that an aid is to
                                                                             be held to affect trade between Member States if as a
                                                                             result of that aid (1) traders in one Member State reduce
                                                                             the volumes of the goods they import from other Member
                        (Case C-308/01)                                      States; or (2) a trader who rents domestic appliances to
                                                                             customers in one Member State has a number of its rental
                                                                             contracts discontinued and disposes of those appliances
                                                                             in another Member State; or (3) insurance companies in
                                                                             one Member State, which provide insurance connected
                        (2001/C 303/12)                                      with the sales of domestic appliances, are placed at a
                                                                             competitive disadvantage with companies which sell
                                                                             direct insurance some of which are subsidiaries of
                                                                             companies in other Member States?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a direction of the VAT and Duties               5.   If, in the light of the answers to Questions 3 and 4, the
Tribunals of 24 July 2001, which was received at the Court                   higher rate of insurance premium tax constitutes a state
Registry on 6 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the                   aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC, is Article 88
case of 1) Gil Insurance Ltd, 2) UK Consumer Electronics Ltd,                EC to be interpreted so that, where the Commission is
3) Consumer Electronics Insurance Company Ltd, 4) Direct                     not informed of any plans to grant such aid, the legislative
Vision Rentals Ltd, 5) Homecare Insurance Ltd, 6) Pinnacle                   measures introducing the aid should be dis-applied and
Insurance plc against Commissioners of Customs and Excise,                   any tax paid under those measures should be repaid?
on the following questions:
                                                                        (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
1.   Is Article 27 of the Sixth Council Directive 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
     (77/388/EEC) (1) to be interpreted so that the prior
     authorisation of the Council was required before the
     introduction of a higher rate of tax on insurance pre-
     miums, which tax was designed to nullify the exemption
     for insurance services in Article 13 of the Directive; which
     was at a rate identical to the standard rate of value added        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Unabhängiger
     tax; which was administered in the same way as value               Verwaltungssenat Wien by order of that court of 25 July
     added tax; which was intended with value added tax to              2001 in the case of Dr Eva Glawischnig against Bundes-
     form part of an inseparable whole; and where there was                                           kanzler
     no tax evasion or tax avoidance?
                                                                                (Case C-316/01)
2.   Is Article 33 of the Sixth Council Directive of 17 May
     1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                                        (2001/C 303/13)
     States relating to turnover taxes — common system of
     value added tax: uniform basis of assessment
     (77/388/EEC) to be interpreted so as to prevent a Member           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     State from introducing a tax on insurance premiums                 European Communities by order of the Unabhängiger Verwal-
     which is calculated by reference to the services supplied;         tungssenat Wien (Independent Administrative Chamber, Vien-
     which is proportional to the price of the services supplied;       na) of 25 July 2001, received at the Court Registry on
     which is charged at the final stage of sale to the consumer;       13 August 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dr Eva
     which is passed on to the final consumer in a manner               Glawischnig v Bundeskanzler on the following questions:
     characteristic of value added tax so that the burden of tax
     rests on the final consumer; which applies to the whole
     territory of the United kingdom; but which does not                1.   Can the name of the manufacturer of foodstuffs and their
     apply generally to all transactions relating to goods and               product description, in respect of which a complaint has
     services?                                                               been made in the context of the monitoring by the


title: Case C-411/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt, by a decision of that Court of 29 September 2000 in the case of Felix Swoboda against the Austrian National Bank

text:
27.1.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 28/15
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-                        the contracting authority to separate off non-priority part
beamt, by a decision of that Court of 29 September 2000                       services and to award contracts for them separately in
in the case of Felix Swoboda against the Austrian National                    order to preserve the priority nature of the service?
                               Bank
                                                                         (1) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.
                         (Case C-411/00)
                          (2001/C 28/26)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Bundesvergabeamt
on 29 September 2000, which was received at the Court
Registry on 10 November, for a preliminary ruling in the case            Action brought on 10 November 2000 by the Com-
of Felix Swoboda GmbH against the Austrian National Bank,                mission of the European Communities against the Portu-
on the following questions:                                                                       guese Republic
                                                                                (Case C-412/00)
—    Must a service which serves a single purpose, but which
     could be subdivided into part services, be classified as a
     single service consisting of a main service and accessory,                                    (2001/C 28/27)
     supporting services in accordance with the scheme of
     Directive 92/50/EEC (1), in particular of the types of
     services contained in Annex I A and I B, and treated as a           An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
     service listed in Annex I A or I B of the directive according       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
     to its main object, or must each part service instead be            10 November 2000 by the Commission of the European
     considered separately to establish whether the service is           Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira, of its
     subject to the directive in full as a priority service or to        Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
     only individual provisions thereof as a non-priority                Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
     service?                                                            Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—    How far may a service which describes a specific type of
     service (e.g. transport services) be broken down into
     individual services in accordance with the scheme of                —    Declare that, by failing to bring into force within the
     Directive 92/50/EEC without infringing the provisions                    prescribed period all the provisions necessary to comply
     on the award of service contracts or undermining the                     with:
     effet utile of the directive on services?
                                                                              (a)   Commission Directive 98/54/EC (1) of 16 July 1998
                                                                                amending Directives 71/250/EEC, 72/199/EEC,
—    Must the services referred to in this case (having regard                      73/46/EEC and repealing Directive 75/84/EEC;
     to Article 10 of Directive 92/50/EEC) be classified as
     services listed in Annex I A of Directive 92/50/EEC
     (Category 2, land transport services) and contracts which                (b) Commission Directive 98/68/EC (2) of 10 September
     have as their object such services thus be awarded in                          1998 laying down the standard document referred
     accordance with the provisions of Titles III to VI of the                      to in Article 9(1) of Council Directive 95/53/EC and
     directive, or must they be classified as services listed                       certain rules for checks at the introduction into the
     in Annex I B of Directive 92/50/EEC (in particular                             Community of feedingstuffs from third countries;
     Category 20, Supporting and auxiliary transport services,
     and Category 27, Other services) and contracts which                     (c)   Commission Directive 98/82/EC (3) of 27 October
     have as their object such services thus be awarded in                          1998 amending the Annexes to Council Directives
     accordance with Articles 14 and 16, and under which                            86/362/EEC, 86/363/EEC and 90/642/EEC on the
     CPC reference number must they be subsumed?                                    fixing of maximum levels for pesticide residues in
                                                                                and on cereals, foodstuffs of animal origin and
                                                                                certain products of plant origin, including fruit and
—    In the event that consideration of the part services leads                     vegetables respectively;
     to the conclusion that a part service listed in Annex I A
     of the directive which per se is subject in full to the
     provisions of Directive 92/50/EEC is, by way of an                       the Portuguese Republic failed to fulfil its obligations
     exception, not subject in full to the provisions of the                  under the Treaty.
     directive on account of the principle of predominance
     laid down in Article 10 thereof, is there an obligation on          —    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-411/13: Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/60

         Order of the General Court of 16 March 2017 — T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v Commission
   (Case T-411/13) (1)

   (2017/C 144/84)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Seventh Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 274, 21.9.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 11 July 1996 in Case C-232/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberlandesgericht Köln): MPA Pharma GmbH v. Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH (Repackaging of trade-marked products - Article 36 of the EC Treaty)

text:
9 . 11 . 96            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 336/ 11
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      the packaging is not indirectly affected, for example, by
                        of 11 July 1996                                   the fact that the external or inner packaging of the
                                                                          repackaged product or new user instructions or
in Case C-232/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling by                  information omits certain important information or
the Oberlandesgericht Koln ): MPA Pharma GmbH v.                          gives inaccurate information,
               Rhône-Poulenc Pharma GmbH (M
(Repackaging oftrade-markedproducts — Article 36 ofthe                — the new packaging clearly states who repackaged the
                           EC Treaty)                                     product and the name of the manufacturer in print such
                         ( 96/C 336/ 19 )                                 that a person with normal eyesight, exercising a normal
                                                                          degree of attentiveness, would be in a position to
                (Language of the case: German)                            understand; however, it is not necessary to indicate that
                                                                          the repackaging was carried out without the
                                                                          authorization of the trade-mark owner,
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                    — the presentation ofthe repackaged product is not such as
                                                                          to be liable to damage the reputation of the trade mark
In Case C-232/94 , reference to the Court pursuant to                     and of its owner; thus, the packaging must not be
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Oberlandesgericht Koln                defective, of poor quality, or untidy; and
( Higher Regional Court, Cologne, Germany ) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that             — the importer gives notice to the trade-mark owner before
court between MPA Pharma GmbH and Rhone-Poulenc                           the repackaged product is put on sale, and, on demand,
Pharma GmbH on the interpretation of Article 36 of the EC                 supplies him with a specimen of the repackaged
Treaty in relation to trade marks, the Court, composed of:                product.
G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, J. -P.
Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of Chambers ), G. F.            (') OJ No C 275 , 1 . 10 . 1994 .
Mancini , J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann
( Rapporteur ), P. Jann and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;
Advocate-General : F. G. Jacobs, for the Registrar: H. von
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, L. Hewlett, Administrator, has
given a judgment on 11 July 1996 in which it rules :
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Article 36 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted as meaning                                    ( Fifth Chamber)
that a trade-mark owner may rely on hi$ rights as owner to
prevent an importer from marketing a pharmaceutical                                           of 11 July 1996
product which was put on the market in another Member                 in Case C-25/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from the
State by the owner or with his consent, where that importer           Hessischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Siegfried Otte v.
has repackaged the product and reaffixed the trade mark                               Federal Republic of Germany
thereto, unless:
                                                                      (Social security for migrant workers — Community rules —
— it is established that reliance on trade mark rights by the         Matters covered — Benefit paid to workers in the coal
    owner in order to oppose the marketing of repackaged              industry who have passed a specified age-limit and have
    products under that trade mark would contribute to the            been laid off as a result of closure of the undertaking
    artificial partitioning of the markets between Member             employing them or rationalization measures (adaptation
    States; such is the case, in particular, where the owner          allowance) — Benefit paid by way ofsubsidy — Method of
    has put an identical pharmaceutical product on the                calculating benefits — Taking into account of a pension
    market in several Member States in various forms of              paid under the legislation of another Member State —
    packaging, and the repackaging carried out by the                                     Conditions and limits)
    importer is necessary in order to market the product in                                     ( 96/C 336/20 )
    the Member State of importation, and also carried out in
    such conditions that the original condition of the                               (Language of the case: German)
    product cannot be affected by it; that requirement does
    not, however, imply that it must be established that the
    trade-mark owner deliberately sought to partition the             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
    markets between Member States,                                            published in the European Court Reports)
— it is shown that the repackaging cannot affect the                  In Case C-25/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
    original condition of the product inside the packaging;           Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hessischer
    such is the case, in particular, where the importer has           Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling
    merely carried out operations involving no risk of the            in the proceedings pending before that court between
    product being affected, such as, for example, the                 Siegfried Otte and Federal Republic of Germany — on the
    removal of blister packs from their original external             interpretation of Articles 4(1 ) and ( 2 ), 12 ( 2 ) and 46 of
    packaging and their insertion into new external                   Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
    packaging, or the addition to the packaging of new user           the application of social security schemes to employed
    instructions or information; it is for the national court to      persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
    verify that the original condition of the product inside          families moving within the Community, as amended and


title: Case F-44/10: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 November 2010 — Lebedef v Commission

text:
               29.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 30/69

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 November 2010 — Lebedef v Commission
   (Case F-44/10) (1)

   ()
   2011/C 30/137
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 31.7.2010, p. 56.


title: Case C-478/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords by order of that court dated 10 November 2003, in the case of Celtec Ltd against Astley and others

text:
24.1.2004                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                             C 21/17
Action brought on 17 November 2003 by the Com-                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                    by order of that court dated 10 November 2003, in the
                        Republic of Germany                                          case of Celtec Ltd against Astley and others
                           (Case C-477/03)                                                          (Case C-478/03)
                            (2004/C 21/31)                                                           (2004/C 21/32)
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
ties on 17 November 2003 by the Commission of the                          European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
European Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt and                   dated 10 November 2003, which was received at the Court
Wouter Wils, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                    Registry on 17 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in
                                                                           the case of Celtec Ltd and Astley and others on the following
                                                                           questions:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                           1.    Are the words ‘the transferor’s rights and obligations
1.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     arising from a contract of employment or from an
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     employment relationship existing on the date of a
      Directive 2001/12/EC of the European Parliament and of                     transfer’ in Article 3(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                           of 14 February 1977 on the approximation ofthe laws
      Directive 91/440/EEC on the development of the Com-                        of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of
      munity’s railways (1), or by failing to inform the Com-                    employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings,
      mission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has                       businesses or parts of businesses (1) to be interpreted as
      failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.                     meaning that there is a particular point in time at which
                                                                                the transfer of the undertaking or part thereof is deemed
2.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                     to have been completed and the transfer of rights and
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with                     obligations pursuant to Article 3(1) is effected?
      Directive 2001/13/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 amending Council                     2.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘yes’, how is that particular
      Directive 95/18/EC on the licensing of railway undertak-                   point in time to be identified?
      ings (2), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
                                                                           3.    If the answer to question 1 is ‘no’, how are the words ‘on
      obligations under that directive.
                                                                                the date of a transfer’ in Article 3(1) to be interpreted?
3.    Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with               (1) OJ L 61, 5.3.1977, p. 26.
      Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of
      railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges
      for the use of railway infrastructure and safety certifi-
      cation (3), or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
      the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive.
4.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.              Action brought on 19 November 2003 by Commission of
                                                                              the European Communities against Kingdom of Spain
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                     (Case C-485/03)
The time-limit for transposition of the directive expired on                                         (2004/C 21/33)
15 March 2003.
(1) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 1.                                                    An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before
(2) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 26.                                                   the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 No-
(3) OJ 2001 L 75, p. 29.                                                   vember 2003 by Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by José Luis Buendía Sierra of its Legal Service,
                                                                           acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 5 October 1999 in Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Udine): Criminal proceedings against Paolo Lirussi (C-175/98) and Francesca Bizzaro (C-177/98) (Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC — Definition of temporary storage, pending collection, on the site where it is produced — Definition of waste management)

text:
8.1.2000                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 6/7
J. Grunwald) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of:                       91/689/EEC of 12 December 1991 on hazardous waste (OJ
P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, J.L. Murray (Rappor-               1991 L 377, p. 20), as amended by Council Directive 94/31/EC
teur) and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General;                 of 27 June 1994 (OJ 1994 L 168, p. 28) — the Court (Fourth
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October 1999,                 Chamber), composed of: J.L. Murray, acting as President of the
in which it:                                                                 Fourth Chamber, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and R. Schint-
                                                                             gen, Judges; P: Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Adminis-
1. Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                 trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 5 October
     15 October 1997 in Case T-331/94 IPK v Commission in so                 1999 in which it has ruled:
     far as it dismissed the claim of IPK-München GmbH for
     annulment of the Commission’s decision of 3 August 1994 to              1. ‘Temporary storage’ of waste must be distinguished from ‘storage
     refuse to pay the balance of financial assistance granted to                 pending’ further operations and is not a ‘management operation’
     support a project to create a database of information on ecological          within the meaning of Article 1(d) of Council Directive
     tourism in Europe, and ordered the applicant to pay the costs;               75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council
                                                                                Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991.
2. Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for it to give
     judgment on the claim of IPK-München GmbH for annulment                 2. The competent national authorities are required, with regard to
     of the decision of 3 August 1994;                                            temporary storage operations, to ensure that the obligations
                                                                                arising from Article 4 of Directive 75/442 are complied with.
3. Orders the costs to be reserved.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 209 of 4.7.1998.
( 1) OJ No C 55 of 20.2.1998.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                          (Fourth Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 October 1999
                          of 5 October 1999
                                                                             in Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communi-
in Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98 (references for a                                                ties v Ireland (1)
preliminary ruling from the Pretore di Udine): Criminal
proceedings against Paolo Lirussi (C-175/98) and Frances-
                       ca Bizzaro (C-177/98) (1)                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                                Directive 92/100/EEC)
(Waste — Directives 75/442/EEC and 91/689/EEC —
Definition of temporary storage, pending collection, on the                                             (2000/C 6/14)
site where it is produced — Definition of waste management)
                             (2000/C 6/13)                                                       (Language of the case: English)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                             In Case C-213/98: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                             (Agent: K. Banks) v Ireland (Agent: M.A. Buckley) — application
(Provisional translation: the definitive translation will be published       for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
                     in the European Court Reports)                          and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                             Council Directive 92/100/EEC of 19 November 1992 on
In Joined Cases C-175/98 and C-177/98: references to the                     rental right and lending right and on certain rights related to
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                    copyright in the field of intellectual property (OJ 1992 L 346,
EC) from the Pretore di Udine (Italy) for a preliminary ruling               p. 61) and/or by failing to inform the Commission thereof,
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court between                Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty
Paolo Lirussi (Case C-175/98) and Francesca Bizzaro (Case                    — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: J.C. Moitinho de
C-177/98) — on the interpretation of Council Directive                       Almeida, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur)
75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975 L 194,                          and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; R.
p. 39), as amended by Council Directive (EEC) 91/156/EEC of                  Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 October 1999,
18 March 1991 (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32), and Council Directive                   in which it: