title: Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European Parliament against the Council of the European Union (Case C-164/97)

text:
No C 212/ 12            EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                  12 . 7 . 97
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of                       Communities on 30 April 1997 by the European
the European Communities against the Kingdom of                            Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo, Head of
                                   Belgium                                 Division in its Legal Service, and Joao Sant'Anna, of its
                          ( Case C-163/97)                                 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
                                                                           in Luxembourg at its General Secretariat, Mail and
                              ( 97/C 212/20 )                              Registry Service, Tower Building, Office 017.
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                       The European Parliament claims that the Court should:
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European                         — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty,
Communities, represented by Hendrik van Lier, Legal                            Regulation ( EC ) No 307/97 ('), amending Regulation
Adviser, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                        ( EEC) No 3528/86 (2 ) on the protection of the
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                           Community's forests against atmospheric pollution,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                                      and
The Commission of the European Communities claims                          — order the Council of the European Union to pay the
that the Court should :                                                        costs .
— declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
     and administrative provisions necessary to comply
     with Council Directive 92/74/EEC of 22 September                      The contested Regulation, which extends until
     1992 widening the scope of Directive 81 /851 /EEC on                  31 December 2001 the duration of the scheme provided
     the approximation of provisions laid down by law,                     for by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 of
     regulation or administrative action relating to                       17 November 1986 on the protection of the Community's
     veterinary medicinal products and laying down                         forests against atmospheric pollution, was adopted on the
     additional provisions on homeopathic veterinary                       sole basis of Article 43 of the EC Treaty, relating to the
     medicinal products H , the Kingdom of Belgium has                     common agricultural policy, which provides that the
     failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive,                European Parliament is to be consulted . The legal basis
                                                                           for the Regulation should, however, have been Article 130s
— in the alternative declare that, in any event, by failing                of the Treaty, relating to environmental policy, which
     to inform the Commission of such measures forthwith,                  provides for the 'cooperation' procedure between the
     the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                       Council and the Parliament .
     obligations under the same provisions, and
                                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 was itself adopted on the
— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                          legal basis of Articles 43 and 235 of the EC Treaty. Being
                                                                           adopted before the entry into force of the Single European
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced, in support:                       Act, it could not have been based on Article 130s.
                                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86 was amended for the first
Under Article 10 of the Directive in issue, Member States                  time by Regulation ( EEC ) No 1613/89 of 29 May 1989
were to take the measures necessary to comply with the                     on the protection of the Community's forests against
 Directive by 31 December 1993 .                                            atmospheric pollution ( 3 ). It was again amended by
                                                                            Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2157/92 of 23 July 1992 on
                                                                           the protection of the Community's forests against
 In reply to a letter of formal notice, the Belgian authorities             atmospheric pollution (4). Those two Regulations are
 stated on 12 June 1995 that the necessary measures were                    based on both Article 43 and Article 130s of the EC
 contained in a draft Royal Decree submitted to the office                  Treaty. Admittedly, at that time Article 130s involved only
 of the Minister of Public Health .
                                                                           the 'consultation' procedure, as did Article 43 of the
                                                                            Treaty.
 Since then, the Commission has heard nothing more of
 that legislative procedure .                                               From its content, it is clear that the contested Regulation
                                                                            concerns environmental protection . The measures which it
 (•) OJ No L 297, 13 . 10 . 1992 , p . 12 .                                 extends — in particular projects for observing damage,
                                                                            and understanding pollution and its effects on forests —
                                                                            are strictly linked to forests and their protection . Their
                                                                            aim is the protection of forests . Such measures cannot fall
                                                                            within the scope of the common agricultural policy. They
                                                                            are of no relevance to the products concerned by
 Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European                            Articles 38 to 46 of the EC Treaty, namely those listed in
    Parliament against the Council of the European Union                    Annex II to the Treaty. The measures concerned fall
                            ( Case C-164/97 )                               within the scope of Article 13 Or of the Treaty.
                                ( 97/C 212/21 )
                                                                            The stated objectives of Regulation ( EEC ) No 3528/86
                                                                            and of Regulations ( EEC ) No 1613/89 and ( EEC)
 An action against the Council of the European Union was                    No 2157/92 are the fight against pollution and the
  brought before the Court of Justice of the European                       preservation of forest resources, which play an essential
 ---pagebreak--- 12 . 7 . 97                  EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 212/ 13
part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our                         Admittedly, at that time Article 130s involved only the
environment, particularly as regards soil, water, climate,                  'consultation' procedure, as did Article 43 of the Treaty.
fauna and flora . It is in contradiction to the preambles to                The first Regulation in that field, Council Regulation
those Regulations that the contested Regulation, which                      ( EEC ) No 3529/86 of 17 November 1986 on protection of
merely extends the existing provisions for five years,                      the Community's forests against fire ( 3 ), adopted before
mentions in its preamble that the protection of forests                     the entry into force of the Single European Act, had
against atmospheric pollution and certain unfavourable                      Articles 43 and 235 of the Treaty as its legal basis .
meteorological factors contributes directly to the
achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39 ( 1 )
( b ) of the EC Treaty.                                                     From its content, it is clear that the contested Regulation
                                                                            concerns environmental protection. The measures which it
(')   OJ  No  L  51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 9 .                                extends — in particular identification of the causes of
(2)   OJ  No  L  326 , 21 . 11 . 1986, p . 2 .                              fires, creation or improvement of systems of prevention,
(3)   OJ  No  L  165 , 15 . 6 . 1989, p . 8 .                               training of specialized personnel, analytical studies and
(4)   OJ  No   L 217, 31 . 7. 1992 , p . 1 .                                pilot projects to test new techniques and fire-fighting
                                                                            methods — are strictly linked to forests and their
                                                                            protection . Their aim is the protection of forests. Such
                                                                            measures cannot fall within the scope of the common
                                                                            agricultural policy. They are of no relevance to the
                                                                            products concerned by Articles 38 to 46 of the EC Treaty,
                                                                            namely those listed in Annex II to the Treaty. The
Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the European                             measures concerned fall within the scope of Article 130r
     Parliament against the Council of the European Union                   of the Treaty.
                                Case C-165 /97
                                 ( 97/C 212/22 )
                                                                            The stated objectives of Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92
                                                                             and its predecessor are the protection against fire and the
An action against the Council of the European Union was                      preservation of forest resources, which play an essential
 brought before the Court of Justice of the European                         part in maintaining the fundamental balances of our
 Communities on 30 April 1997 by the European                                environment, particularly as regards soil , water, climate,
 Parliament, represented by Johann Schoo, Head of                            fauna and flora . It is only as an ancillary matter that their
 Division in its Legal Service, and Joao Sant'Anna, of its                   preambles mention the safeguarding of the various
                                                                             functions which forests fulfil in rural areas . It is in
 Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service
 in Luxembourg at its General Secretariat, Mail and                          contradiction to the preambles of those Regulations that
 Registry Service, Tower Building, Office 017.                               the contested Regulation, which merely extends the
                                                                             existing provisions for five years, mentions in its preamble
                                                                             that protecting forests against fire directly contributes to
 The European Parliament claims that the Court should :                      the achievement of the objectives laid down in Article 39
                                                                             ( 1 ) ( b ) of the EC Treaty.
 — annul, pursuant to Article 173 of the EC Treaty,
       Regulation ( EC ) No 308/97 ('), amending Regulation                  (') OJ No L 51 , 21 . 2 . 1997, p . 11 .
       ( EEC ) No 2158/92 ( 2 ) on the protection of the                     ( 2 ) OJ No L 217, 31 . 7 . 1992 , p . 3 .
       Community's forests against fire, and                                  (•') OJ No L 326 , 21 . 11 . 1986 , p. 5 .
 — order the Council of the European Union to pay the
       costs .
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                              Action brought on 30 April 1997 by the Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities against the French Republic
  The contested Regulation, which extends until
  31 December 2001 the duration of the scheme provided                                                  ( Case C-166/97)
  for by Council Regulation (EEC ) No 2158/92 of 23 July                                                   ( 97/C 212/23 )
  1992 on the protection of the Community's forests against
  fire, was adopted on the sole basis of Article 43 of the EC
  Treaty, relating to the common agricultural policy, which
  provides that the European Parliament is to be consulted .                   An action against the French Republic was brought before
  The legal basis for the Regulation should, however, have                     the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
  been Article 130s of the Treaty, relating to environmental                   30 April 1997 by the Commission of the European
  policy, which provides for the 'cooperation' procedure                       Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright,
  between the Council and the Parliament .                                     Legal Adviser, and Jean-Francis Pasquier, a national civil
                                                                               servant seconded to the Commission's Legal Service,
                                                                               acting as Agents, with an address for service in
  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2158/92 was itself adopted on the                      Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
  legal basis of Articles 43 and 130s of the EC Treaty.                        Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: Case C-133/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG v RITRAMA SpA

text:
               9.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 204/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 18 March 2011 — Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG v RITRAMA SpA
   (Case C-133/11)
   2011/C 204/22
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Folien Fischer AG and Fofitec AG

      Defendant: RITRAMA SpA

      Question referred

   Is Article 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction in matters relating to tort or delict also exists in respect of an action for a negative declaration in which a potential injuring party asserts that the party potentially injured by a particular situation has no claim in tort or delict (in this case, infringement of the provisions of anti-trust law)?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


30 . 12. 95           HENI                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 351 / 11
        specific area related payment on a farmer whose area            from the register of Case C-98/95 : Commission of the
        actually determined is found to be less than that               European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
        declared in the aid application when the difference
        more than 20 % but when no false intention or serious           (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
        negligence has been found ?
(') OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 156 , 7 . 7. 1995 , p . 27 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C- 113/95 ( )
                                                                                95/C 351 /21 )
         Removal from the register of Case C-14/95 ( )                  By order of 4 October 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 / 19                              from the register of Case C- 113/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                         (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
C-14/95 : Commission of the European Communities v.
Kingdom of Belgium .
(') O J No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-125/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /22 )
                                                                        By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of
         Removal from the register of Case C-98/95 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 /20 )                             from the register of Case C-125/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
By order of 22 September 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                should not be taken into consideration, and of the
                        of 19 October 1995                              defendant's decision of 22 March 1993 rejecting that
     in Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst v. Commission of the
                                                                        application and, second, for compensation for the material
                                                                        and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                    European Communities (')                            — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Act adversely                      of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
affecting an official — Article 45 of the StaffRegulations —            Saggio, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Notice of vacancy — Misuse of powers — Statement of                     19 October 1995 , in which it:
              reasons — Compensation for damage)
                            ( 95/C 351 /23 )                            1 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for breach of
                 (Language of the case: German)                             duty;
In Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst, an official of the                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Everberg ( Belgium ), represented initially by Heinz-Jorg
Moritz and subsequently by Lothar Mahlberg,                             3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    one quarter of the costs of the applicant, who is ordered
care of Marianne Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel , v.                   to bear three quarters of his own costs.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
Griesmar and Bertrand Wagenbaur ) — application, first, for             (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
the annulment of notice No 45/93 of the Advisory
Committee on Appointments of 18 February 1993 ,
inasmuch as it indicates that the application of the applicant


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 27 June 2001 in Joined Cases T-164/99, T-37/00 and T-38/00 Alain Leroy and Others v Council of the European Union (Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council — Action for annulment)

text:
C 289/24                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.10.2001
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                          of 27 June 2001                                                             of 7 June 2001
                                                                          in Case T-328/00: Mario Costacurta v Commission of the
in Joined Cases T-164/99, T-37/00 and T-38/00 Alain                                           European Communities (1)
   Leroy and Others v Council of the European Union (1)
                                                                          (Officials — Assignment of the applicant to a third country
(Decision 1999/307/EC — Integration of the Schengen                       in 1993 — Reintegration of the official in the Publications
Secretariat into the General Secretariat of the Council —                 Office in 1996 — Loss of entitlement to the derogating
                       Action for annulment)                              provisions of Annex X to the Staff Regulations — Request
                                                                          to be reassigned to a third State submitted in 2000 on the
                                                                          basis of Annex X — Inadmissibility of the action directed
                          (2001/C 289/59)                                           against the Commission’s implied decisions)
                                                                                (2001/C 289/60)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
In Joined Cases T-164/99, T-37/00 and T-38/00 Alain Leroy,
former employee of the Economic Union of Belgium, the                     In Case T-328/00: Mario Costacurta, an official of the Com-
Netherlands and Luxembourg (Benelux) seconded to the                      mission of the European Communities, residing in Luxem-
Schengen Secretariat, residing in Grimbergen, Belgium, Yan-               bourg, represented by M. Petit, lawyer, with an address for
nick Chevalier-Delanoue, official of the Council of the Euro-             service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
pean Union, residing in Brussels, Belgium, Virginia Joaquim               Communities (Agent: J. Currall) — application for annulment
Matos, residing in Montijo, Portugal, represented by G. Vander-           directed, first, against a supposed implied rejection of the
sanden and L. Levi, lawyers, with an address for service in               request to be reassigned to a third State, dated 6 June 2000,
Luxembourg, supported by Union syndicale-Bruxelles, estab-                and, secondly, against a supposed implied rejection of the
lished in Brussels, represented by S. Parmesan, lawyer, with an           applicant’s complaint of 24 October 2000 — the Court of
address for service in Luxembourg, intervener in Case T-                  First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
164/99, against Council of the European Union (Agents:                    President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
M. Bauer, F. Anton, and A. Bentley) — application — in Case               made an order on 7 June 2001, the operative part of which is
T-164/99 — for annulment of Council Decision 1999/307/EC                  as follows:
of 1 May 1999 laying down the detailed arrangements for the
integration of the Schengen Secretariat into the General
Secretariat of the Council (OJ 1999 L 119, p. 49) and — in                1.    The application is dismissed as inadmissible.
Cases T-37/00 and T-38/00 — for annulment of Decision
1999/307, of various decisions of the Council appointing                  2.    The applicant shall bear all the costs, including those relating
other persons to posts within that institution, and of the                      to the interlocutory proceedings.
implied decisions of the Council not to appoint the applicants
to any of those posts, and for damages — the Court of
                                                                          (1) OJ C 372 of 23.12.00.
First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij,
President, A. Potocki and J. Pirrung, Judges; D. Christensen,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
27 June 2001, in which it:
1.    Dismisses the actions;
                                                                          Action brought on 20 June 2001 by Entorn, Sociedat
2.    In Case T-164/99, orders the applicant to bear his own costs        Limitada Enginyeria i Serveis against Commission of the
      and pay those incurred by the Council, and orders the intervener                          European Communities
      to bear its own costs;
                                                                                (Case T-141/01)
3.    In Cases T-37/00 and T-38/00, orders the parties to bear
      their own costs.
                                                                                (2001/C 289/61)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.99.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the


title: Case C-509/14: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/23/EC — Article 1(1) — Transfers of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees’ rights — Obligation on the transferee to take on workers — Public undertaking responsible for a public service — Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement — Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry — Retention of identity of the economic entity — Activity based essentially on equipment — Employees not taken on)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/10

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco — Spain) — Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF) v Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial
   (Case C-509/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/23/EC - Article 1(1) - Transfers of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees’ rights - Obligation on the transferee to take on workers - Public undertaking responsible for a public service - Provision of the service by another undertaking pursuant to a public service operating agreement - Decision not to extend that agreement following its expiry - Retention of identity of the economic entity - Activity based essentially on equipment - Employees not taken on))
   (2016/C 038/12)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Administrador de Infraestructuras Ferroviarias (ADIF)

      Defendants: Luis Aira Pascual, Algeposa Terminales Ferroviarios SL, Fondo de Garantía Salarial

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 1(1) of Council Directive 2001/23/EC of 12 March 2001 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of undertakings or businesses must be interpreted as meaning that the scope of that directive covers a situation in which a public undertaking, responsible for the economic activity of handling intermodal transport units, entrusts, by a public service operating agreement, the performance of that activity to another undertaking, providing to the latter undertaking the necessary facilities and equipment, which it owns, and subsequently decides to terminate that agreement without taking over the employees of the latter undertaking, on the ground that it will henceforth perform that activity itself with its own staff.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2015.


title: Case T-60/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — UFEX and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Competition — Abuse of a dominant position — International express courier market — Decision dismissing complaint — Annulment by Community judicature of decision dismissing complaint — Re-examination and dismissal anew of complaint — Public undertaking)

text:
               20.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 247/30

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 12 September 2007 — UFEX and Others v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-60/05) (1)

   (Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - International express courier market - Decision dismissing complaint - Annulment by Community judicature of decision dismissing complaint - Re-examination and dismissal anew of complaint - Public undertaking)
   (2007/C 247/48)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Union française de l'express (UFEX) (Roissy-en-France, France), DHL Express (France) SAS, formerly DHL International SA (Roissy-en-France); Federal express international (France) SNC (Gennevilliers, France); and CRIE SA, (Asnières, France) (represented by: É. Morgan de Rivery and J. Derenne, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by A. Bouquet and O. Beynet, then by A. Bouquet and V. Di Bucci, agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Chronopost SA, (Issy-les-Moulineaux, France), represented by D. Berlin, lawyer and La Poste, (Paris, France), represented by H. Lehman, lawyer
   Re:
   Annulment of Commission decision SG-Greffe (2004) D/205294 of 19 November 2004 rejecting the action brought by the applicants against La Poste and the French Government concerning the international express courier market in France.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               orders removal of CRIE SA from the list of applicants;

               2.

               dismisses the action;

               3.

               orders Union française de l'express (UFEX), DHL Express (France) SAS, and Federal express international (France) SNC to pay, in addition to their own costs, three quarters of the costs of Chronopost SA and La Poste, Chronopost SA and La Poste to bear one quarter of their own costs; orders CRIE to pay, in addition to its own costs, one quarter of the costs of the Commission, the Commission to bear three quarters of its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 93 of 16.4.2005.


title: Case T-29/13: Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014  — AbbVie v EMA

text:
               13.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 361/29

         Order of the General Court of 17 July 2014 — AbbVie v EMA
   (Case T-29/13) (1)

   2014/C 361/44
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fourth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 79, 16.3.2013.


title: Case F-8/12: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — BY v EASA (EASA staff — Member of the temporary staff — Dismissal for incompetence — Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — External cause for professional difficulties — Psychological harassment — Illness — Damages)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/45

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — BY v EASA
   (Case F-8/12) (1)

   (EASA staff - Member of the temporary staff - Dismissal for incompetence - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - External cause for professional difficulties - Psychological harassment - Illness - Damages)
   2013/C 252/77
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: BY (Lasne, Belgium) (represented by: B.-H. Vincent, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) (represented by: F. Manuhutu, Agent and D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application to annul the decision to dismiss the applicant and the application for compensation for damage claimed to be suffered because of that dismissal and alleged harassment.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Orders the European Aviation Safety Agency to pay to BY the sum corresponding to nine months of net remuneration which he received prior to his dismissal;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders the European Aviation Safety Agency to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by BY.

      (1)  OJ C 65, 3.3.2012, p.28.


title: Case C-365/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014  — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/10

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim (Germany) lodged on 28 July 2014 — Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler v Condor Flugdienst GmbH
   (Case C-365/14)
   2014/C 329/13
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Rüsselsheim

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Brunhilde Liebler, Helmut Liebler

      Defendant: Condor Flugdienst GmbH

      Questions referred

               1.

               Are adverse actions by third parties acting on their own responsibility and to whom certain tasks that constitute part of the operation of an air carrier have been entrusted, to be deemed to be extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation No 261/2004 (1)?

               2.

               If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, does the assessment of the situation depend on who (airline, airport operator etc.) entrusted the task(s) to the third party?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91.


title: Judgment of the Court of 31 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P: D and Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the European Union (Appeal — Official — Household allowance — Married official — Registered partnership under Swedish law)

text:
14.7.2001                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/21
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     2.    That may be proved in accordance with the rules of the domestic
                                                                                legal system of the Member State concerned, provided that those
                                                                                rules are not less favourable than those governing similar
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                        domestic actions and do not render virtually impossible or
                                                                                excessevely difficult the exercise of rights conferred by Com-
                                                                                munity law.
                            of 17 May 2001
in Case C-340/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
the Tribunale civile di Genova): TNT Traco SpA v Poste
                            Italiane SpA (1)
(Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 82 EC
and 86 EC) — Postal services — National legislation making
the supply of express mail services by undertakings other
than the one responsible for operating the universal service
subject to payment of the postal dues normally applicable to
the universal service — Allocation of the proceeds of those
dues to the undertaking with the exclusive right to operate                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         the universal service)
                                                                                of 31 May 2001
                           (2001/C 200/36)
                                                                            in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P: D and
                                                                             Kingdom of Sweden v Council of the European Union (1)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            (Appeal — Official — Household allowance — Married
                                                                                official — Registered partnership under Swedish law)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/37)
In Case C-340/99: reference to the Court under Article 234
EC from the Tribunale civile di Genova (Civil District Court,
Genoa, Italy) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                                      (Language of the case: Swedish)
pending before that court between TNT Traco SpA and Poste
Italiane SpA, formerly Ente Poste Italiane, and Others — on
the interpretation of Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty (now
Articles 82 EC and 86 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, J.-                                          in the European Court Reports)
P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), F. Macken and
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
                                                                            In Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P: D, an official of
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                            the Council of the European Union, residing in Arvika
judgment on 17 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                            (Sweden), represented by J.-N. Louis, G.-F. Parmentier and
                                                                            V. Peere, avocats, Kingdom of Sweden (Agent: L. Nordling),
1.    In so far as trade between Member States may be affected,             supported by Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde) and by
      Article 86 of the EC Treaty, read in conjunction with Article 90      Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents: M.A. Fierstra and J. van
      thereof (now Articles 82 EC and 86 EC), precludes legislation         Bakel) — two appeals against the judgment of the Court of
      of a Member State which grants a private-law undertaking the          First Instance of the European Communities (Second Chamber)
      exclusive right to operate the universal postal service from          in Case T-264/97 D v Council [1999] ECR-SC I-A-1 and II-1,
      making the right, of any other economic operator to provide an        seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
      express mail service not forming part of the universal service        proceedings being: Council of the European Union (Agents:
      subject to payment of postal dues equivalent to the postage           M. Bauer and E. Karlsson) — the Court, composed of:
      charge normally payable to the undertaking responsible for the        G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,
      universal service, unless it can be shown that the proceeds of        M. Wathelet and V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers),
      such payment are necessary to enable the undertaking to operate       D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), P. Jann, L. Sevón,
      the universal postal service in economically acceptable conditions    R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, J.N. Cunha
      and that the undertaking is required to pay the same dues when        Rodrigues and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; J. Mischo, Advo-
      itself providing an express mail service not forming part of the      cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
      universal service.                                                    Registrar, has given a judgment on 31 May 2001, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- C 200/22                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          14.7.2001
1.    Dismisses the appeals;                                                the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                            Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
2.    Orders D and the Kingdom of Sweden jointly and severally to           Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
      pay the costs;                                                        composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                            (Rapporteur), L. Sevón, S. von Bahr and C.W.A. Timmermans,
3.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the                  Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
      Netherlands to bear their own costs.                                  Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                            31 May 2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.                                                   1.    Declares that, by providing that:
                                                                                —    private security work (including surveillante or care-
                                                                                taking of movable property and buildings) may be
                                                                                carried out in Italy, subject to licence, only by private
                                                                                security firms holding Italian nationality;
                                                                                —    only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may
                                                                                be employed as sworn private security guards, the
                                                                                Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the EC Treaty (now,
                                                                                after amendment, Articles 39 EC, 43 EC and 49 EC);
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                            2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                           of 31 May 2001
in Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Free                                               (Fifth Chamber)
movement of workers — Freedom of establishment —
Freedom to provide services — Private security activities —                                            of 7 June 2001
Private security firms and private sworn security guards —
                       Nationality conditions)
                                                                            in Case C-479/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                            the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf): CBA Computer Handels-
                           (2001/C 200/38)                                  und Beteiligungs GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer
                                                                                AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen (1)
                                                                            (Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Tariff
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                        classification of computer ‘sound cards’ — Classification in
                                                                            the Combined Nomenclature — Validity of Regulations (EC)
                                                                                Nos 1153/97 and 2086/97)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                (2001/C 200/39)
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-283/99: Commission of the European Communities                                       (Language of the case: German)
(Agents: initially by A. Aresu and M. Patakia and subsequently
by E. Traversa and M. Patakia) v Italian Republic (Agents:
U. Leanza assisted initially by P.G. Ferri and subsequently by              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
F. Quadri) — application for a declaration that, by providing                                  in the European Court Reports)
that:
                                                                            In Case C-479/99: reference to the Court under Article
—     private security work (including surveillance or caretaking           234 EC from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) for a
      of movable property and buildings) may be carried out in              preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      Italy, subject to licence, only by ‘private security firms’           court between CBA Computer Handels- und Beteiligungs
      holding Italian nationality;                                          GmbH, formerly VOBIS Microcomputer AG and Hauptzollamt
                                                                            Aachen — on the interpretation of headings 8471, 8473 and
—     only Italian nationals possessing such a licence may be               8543 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Cus-
      employed as ‘sworn private security guards’,                          toms Tariff, set out in Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC)


title: Case T-100/07: Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission

text:
               15.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/66

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 2 July 2008 — UPS Europe and UPS Deutschland v Commission
   (Case T-100/07) (1)

   (2008/C 209/118)

      Language of the case: English

   The President of the fifth chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case T-151/03: Action brought on 6 May 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l. against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.6.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                              C 146/45
Action brought on 23 April 2003 by Festival Crociere SpA                     —      second, that the Commission has not correctly assessed
against the Commission of the European Communities                                  certain specific economic factors mentioned in Para-
                                                                                graph 11 of the decision, concerning in particular:
                                                                                continued competition from other operators, prospects
                          (Case T-145/03)                                           of growth in the market, barriers to entry and the real
                                                                                prospects of competing with Carnival/P&O’s dominance
                                                                                in the market. The Commission not only failed to base its
                          (2003/C 146/80)                                           conclusions on a coherent objective justification, but also
                                                                                failed to appraise, as is essential in this case, the effects of
                                                                                the new financial structure of the dual-listed company
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                with reference to the main competitive factors. Had the
                                                                                Commission properly analysed these, it would not have
                                                                                confined itself to referring, without further reflection, to
                                                                                the first decision, but would have reconsidered the
                                                                                assessments made at the time of the first decision, or at
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                           least commenced an in-depth enquiry.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 23 April 2003 by Festival Crociere
SpA, represented by Professor G.M. Roberti, G. Bellitti and
I. Perego, lawyers.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the contested decision;                                          Action brought on 6 May 2003 by Nuova Agricast S.r.l.
                                                                               against the Commission of the European Communities
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (Case T-151/03)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                                        (2003/C 146/81)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
By this action the applicant company challenges the Com-
mission’s Decision of 10 February 2003 authorising, pursuant
to Article 6(1)(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, a concen-
tration between Carnival Cruises and P&O Princess II.
                                                                             An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                             ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
In support of its claims the applicant submits:                              European Communities on 6 May 2003 by Nuova Agricast
                                                                             S.r.l., represented by Michele Arcangelo Calabrese, avvocato.
—     first, that the Commission has not correctly appraised the
      new corporate structure arising from the merger or its
      economic and financial implications. The Commission                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      should have found that the structure of the dual-listed
      company was, of itself, capable of conferring very signifi-
      cant competitive advantages on Carnival, including                     —      Annul the contested measures;
      advantages in terms of financial strength, likely to give it
      overwhelming power on the market such that other                       —      Order the European Commission to pay the costs.
      operators would no longer be able to compete. From this
      point of view the decision appears to be vitiated by a
      manifest error of assessment, as well as an inadequate
      statement of reasons in that the Commission failed to
      consider an essential fact which must be taken into                    Pleas in law and main arguments
      account in order properly to evaluate the competition
      aspects of the concentration. Had that fact been properly
      examined, it would necessarily have led the Commission
      to prohibit the concentration or, at least, to initiate an             The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those
      in-depth enquiry under Article 6(1)(c) of Regulation                   invoked in Case T-139/03 Nuova Agricast S.r.l. v Commission
      No 4064/89;                                                            of the European Communities (1).
 ---pagebreak--- C 146/46                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                     21.6.2003
The applicant submits in particular that the refusal adversely                  Removal from the register of Case T-336/01 (1)
affects the rights of defence which it might invoke both against
the Italian Government (by challenging the document to which                                     (2003/C 146/82)
access was requested before the competent Italian court) and
against the Commission itself from the point at which, not                                 (Language of the case: English)
being aware of the contents of the measure to which access is
sought, the applicant is unable to rely on any errors of
appraisal which the Commission may have committed in                    By order of 19 March 2003 the President of the Fourth
forming the view that it had been properly adopted.                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                        T-336/01: EuroCommerce A.I.S.B.L. v Commission of the
( 1) See p. 43 of this Official Journal.                                European Communities.
                                                                        (1 ) OJ C 84 of 06.04.2002.


title: Case T-327/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PNEUMO UPDATE — Earlier national word mark Pneumo — Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/28

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 18 February 2008 — Altana Pharma v OHIM — Avensa (PNEUMO UPDATE)
   (Case T-327/06) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PNEUMO UPDATE - Earlier national word mark Pneumo - Action in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law)
   (2008/C 92/57)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant: Altana Pharma AG (Constance, Germany) (represented by: H. Becker, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Avensa AG (Zoug, Switzerland)
   Re:
   Action brought against the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 September 2006 (Case R 668/2005-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Avensa AG and Altana Pharma AG.
   Operative part of the order
   The Court:

               1.

               The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly wholly unfounded in law.

               2.

               Altana Pharma AG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 31.12.2006.


title: Case C-409/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/25

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 9 October 2006 — Winner Wetten GmbH v Mayor of Bergheim
   (Case C-409/06)
   (2006/C 326/50)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Winner Wetten GmbH

      Defendant: Mayor of Bergheim
   Questions referred

               1.

               Are Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC to be interpreted as meaning that national rules governing a State monopoly on sports betting, which contain impermissible restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services enshrined in Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, inasmuch as they do not serve to limit betting activities in a consistent and systematic manner within the terms of the Court's case-law (judgment in Case C-243/01 Gambelli and Others [2003] ECR-13031), may still continue to apply for a transitional period on an exceptional basis, notwithstanding the primacy of directly applicable Community law?

               2.

               If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative: what conditions need to be met for the purpose of derogating from that primacy and how is the transitional period to be determined?


title: Case C-187/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 16 April 2010 — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/2

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands), lodged on 16 April 2010 — Baris Unal v Staatssecretaris van Justitie
   (Case C-187/10)
   2010/C 195/03
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Baris Unal

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Justitie

      Question referred

   Does the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association [adopted by the Association Council established pursuant to the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey], having regard also to the principle of legal certainty, in a situation in which there is no question of fraudulent conduct, preclude the competent national authorities from withdrawing, after the expiry of the one-year period referred to in the aforementioned first indent of Article 6(1), the residence permit of a Turkish worker with retroactive effect from the point in time at which there was no longer compliance with the ground on the basis of which the residence permit had been issued under national law?


title: Case C-535/09 P: Order of the Court of 23 March 2011 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia (Appeal — Sugar — Determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the new Member States)

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/7

         Order of the Court of 23 March 2011 — Republic of Estonia v European Commission, Republic of Latvia
   (Case C-535/09 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Sugar - Determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the new Member States)
   2011/C 252/11
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Parties

      Appellant: Republic of Estonia (represented by: L. Uibo, acting as Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: H. Tserepa-Lacombe and E. Randvere, acting as Agents), Republic of Latvia (represented by: K. Drevina and K. Krasovska, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 2 October 2009 in Case T-324/05 Estonia v Commission dismissing the appellant’s action for annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 832/2005 of 31 May 2005 on the determination of surplus quantities of sugar, isoglucose and fructose for the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia (OJ 2005 L 138, p. 3)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Republic of Estonia shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

               3.

               The Republic of Latvia shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 13.3.2010.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 20 June 1996 in Case C-237/95: Commission of the European Communities v. Italian Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC)

text:
No C 336/2              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
On a proper construction of the combined nomenclature of              2 . Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
the Common Customs Tariff, in the version annexed to
Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2505/92 of 14 July 1 992               (') OJ No C 229 of 2 . 9 . 1995 .
amending Annexes I and II to Council Regulation (EEC)                 ( 2 ) OJ No L 163 , 1989 , p . 32 .
No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and             (■') OJ No L 203 , 1989 , p . 50 .
on the Common Customs Tariff, a basic module for the
assembly of a data-processing machine, consisting of a
housing essentially containing two disk drives, is to be
classified, pursuant to General Rule 3 (b) for the
interpretation of the combined nomenclature of the
Common Customs Tariff, under subheading 8471 93 59 as
a 'storage unit', on the basis of the drives it contains.                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Fifth Chamber )
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                of 27 June 1996
( 2 ) OJ No L 267, 1992 , p . 1 .
                                                                      in Case C-107/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling
                                                                      from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden ): P. H. Asscher v.
                                                                                Staatssecretaris van Financiën (')
                                                                       (Article 52 of the EC Treaty — Requirement of equal
                                                                                treatment — Income tax on non-residents)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                            ( 96/C 336/04 )
                         ( Fifth Chamber )
                         of 20 June 1996                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
       in Case C-237/95 : Commission of the European
               Communities v. Italian Republic (')                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
 (Failure to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose
           Directives 89/369/EEC and 89/429/EEC)
                           ( 96/C 336/03 )                            In Case C-107/94 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Hoge Raad der
                                                                      Nederlanden ( Supreme Court of the Netherlands ) for a
                  (Language of the case: Italian)                      preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                      court between P. H. Asscher and Staatssecretaris van
 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          Financien — on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EEC
           published in the European Court Reports)                   Treaty, now the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth Chamber ),
                                                                      composed of: D. A. O. Edward , President of the Chamber,
                                                                      J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , C. Gulmann
In Case C-237/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                       and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger,
 Communities ( Agents : Maria Kontou-Durande and Laura
                                                                       Advocate-General ; H. A. Ruhl , Principal Administrator, for
Pignataro ) v. Italian Republic ( Agent : Professor Umberto            the Registrar, gave judgment on 27 June 1996 , the operative
 Leanza, assisted by Pier Giorgio Ferri ) — application for a          part of which is as follows :
declaration that, by failing to adopt or to communicate the
 laws , regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
comply with Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989                 1 . A national of a Member State pursuing an activity as a
 on the prevention of air pollution from new municipal                       self-employed person in another Member State, in which
 waste-incineration plants ( 2 ) and Council Directive                       he resides, may rely on Article 52 of the EC Treaty as
 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction of air                          against his State of origin, on whose territory he pursues
 pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration                        another activity as a self-employed person, if, by virtue
 plants ( 3 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                 of pursuing an economic activity in a Member State
 obligations pursuant to the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth                   other than his State of origin, he is, with regard to the
 Chamber ), composed of D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur ),                      latter, in a situation which may be regarded as
 President of the Chamber, J. -P. Puissochet, J. C. Moitinho                 equivalent to that of any other person relying as against
 de Almeida, C. Gulmann and P. Jann, Judges; M. B. Elmer,                    the host Member State on the rights and liberties
 Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a                         guaranteed by the Treaty.
 judgment on 20 June 1996 , in which it :
                                                                       2 . Article 52 of the Treaty is to be interpreted as precluding
  1 . Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed               a Member State from applying to a national of a
       period the laws, regulations and administrative                       Member State who pursues an activity as a
       provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                 self-employed person within its territory and at the same
       89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention of air                    time pursues another actwity as a self-employed person
       pollution from new municipal waste-incineration                       in another Member State, in which he resides, a higher
       plants, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its                 rate of income tax than that applicable to residents
       obligations pursuant to Article 12 ( 1 ) of that                      pursuing the same activity where there is no objective
       Directive:                                                            difference between the situation of such taxpayers and


title: Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-316/96)

text:
9. 11 . 96            I EN I               Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 336/21
2 . Having regard to the answer to the first question, do the         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht
     said provisions apply to operations of the kind at issue in      Hamburg by order of that court of 12 August 1996
     the present case, where the owners of a hotel in the south       in the case of Lopex Export GmbH v. Hauptzollamt
     of England, as part of their business as hoteliers, offers                                Hamburg-Jonas
     to customers at a single inclusive charge a week's stay at                               ( Case C-3 15/96 )
     the hotel , transport by coach between the hotel and
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/41 )
     points in the north of England, and a local sight-seeing
     trip by coach during their stay at the hotel ( the transport
     elements being bought in by the owners of the hotel from         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     a coach hire company )?                                          European Communities by an order of the Joint Senate of
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Hamburg ( Hamburg Finance Court) for
                                                                      the     Lander of Hamburg, Niedersachsen and
(>) OJ No L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                              Schleswig-Holstein, Fourth Senate, of 12 August 1996 ,
                                                                      which was received at the Court Registry on 26 September
                                                                       1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of Lopex Export
                                                                      GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas on the following
                                                                      questions :
                                                                      1 . Is the first indent of the first paragraph of Article 13 of
                                                                          Regulation ( EEC ) No 171 5/90 ( 1 ) in so far as it
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura                         prescribes that binding tariff information ceases to be
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by                   valid immediately as a result of the adoption of a
order of that court of 9 September 1996 in the case of                    regulation amending the customs nomenclature, with
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                no transitional period, compatible with Community law
             2 . the President of the Lazio Region                        from the points of view of protection of legitimate
                                                                          expectations and legal certainty ?
                         ( Case C-309/96 )
                           ( 96/C 336/40 )                            2 . If not, what are the consequences in particular in a case
                                                                          where binding tariff information, differing from the
                                                                          amended nomenclature, has been issued and/or there is
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    an export licence with an advance fixing certificate
European Communities by order of the Pretura                              which is still valid for a further six months ?
Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome
District Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division ), of 9 September           Is a decision on the limited continuing validity of
1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                        binding tariff information to be measured against the
23 September 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of               general conditions which have been developed on
Daniele Annibaldi against 1 . Municipality of Guidonia and                protection of legitimate expectations, and in particular
2 . the President of the Lazio Region on the following                    does it presuppose an expectation of the exporter to that
questions:                                                                effect which deserves protection as against the
                                                                          Community interest ? Does that also apply with respect
1 . Is a national law which requires undertakings                         to the third indent of Article 14 ( 4 ) of Regulation ( EEC )
     incorporated within a nature and archaeological park to              No 1715/90, under which the advance fixing certificate
     refrain from any activity whatsoever in the area                     must have been 'issued on the basis of the said binding
     concerned     —     which    amounts   to   a    substantial         tariff information '
     expropriation of the undertakings incorporated within
     the park itself without any provision being made for             (M OJ No L 160 , 26 . 6 . 1990, p . 1 .
     payment of compensation to the individuals whose
     property is expropriated — in breach of the
     fundamental right to property, to carry on business and
     to equal treatment by the national authorities ?
2 . Irrespective of the answer which the Court of Justice
     may consider appropriate in response to the first                Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis
     question, are the measures provided for by Article 7 of          sion of the European Communities against the Italian
     the regional law in question ( equivalent, for the                                             Republic
     purposes of proceedings under Community law, to any                                     ( Case C-3 16/96 )
     other national legislation ) in breach of the principle of                                 ( 96/C 336/42 )
     equal treatment and the related prohibition of
     discrimination laid down in the second subparagraph of
     Article 40 ( 3 ) of the Treaty of Rome ?                                         (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                      An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
                                                                      the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
 ---pagebreak---  No C 336/22             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     9 . 11 . 96
 26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European                     Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                   Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi .
 Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
 Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,
 Wagner Centre, Rue Alcide de Gasperi.                                   The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                         — declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed
 The applicant claims that the Court should:                                 period the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                             provisions necessary to comply with Directive
— declare that, by not adopting within the prescribed                        93/60/EECf 1 ) the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
     period the laws, regulations and administrative                         obligations under that directive and under the EC
     provisions necessary to comply with Directives                          Treaty,
     93/53/EEC ( 1 ), 93/54/EEC ( 2 ), 93/ 113/EC ( 3 ) and
     93/114/EC ( 4 ), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its      — order the Italian Republic to pay the costs .
     obligations under those Directives and under the EC
     Treaty,
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
— order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the
     proceedings .                                                       Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member
                                                                         State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
                                                                         for their implementation. In the present case, when the
                                                                         time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 , the Italian Republic had
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, in providing that a directive is
                                                                         not taken the steps necessary to comply in full with Directive
binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon the Member                93/60/EEC .
State to which it is addressed, places Member States under
an obligation to comply with the time-limits set by directives
for their implementation . In the present case, when the                 (') OJ No L 186 , 28 . 7 . 1993 , p . 28 .
time-limit expired on 1 July 1994 in respect of Directives
93/53/EEC and 93/54/EEC, on 1 January 1995 in respect of
Article 7 of Directive 93 / 113/EC and on 1 October 1994 in
respect of Directive 93/114/EC and the remaining
provisions of Directive 93/ 113/EC, the Italian Republic had
not taken the steps necessary to comply with those
Directives .
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs
(M   OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 23 .                             gericht Wien by order of that court of 18 September 1996 in
(2 ) OJ No L  175 , 19 . 7. 1993 , p . 34 .                             the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels AG,
(3)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 17.                                     Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg
(4)  OJ No L  334,  31 . 12 . 1993 , p . 24 .                                                   ( Case C-318/96 )
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/44 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the
                                                                        Verwaltungsgerichtshof Wien ( Administrative Court,
                                                                        Vienna ) of 18 September 1996 , which was received at the
Action brought on 26 September 1996 by the Commis                      Court Registry on 30 September 1996 , for a preliminary
sion of the European Communities against the Italian                    ruling in the case of SPAR Osterreichische Warenhandels
                               Republic                                 AG, Salzburg v. Finanzlandesdirektion fur Salzburg on the
                                                                        following questions :
                          ( Case C-317/96 )
                            ( 96/C 336/43 )                              1.  Does     Article  17     of the     sixth Council Directive
                                                                             77/388/EEC ( J ) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization
                (Language of the case: Italian)                              of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                             taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                                                                             basis of assessment, prohibit a Member State from
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before                    charging a levy assessed at a fixed rate on the basis
                                                                             of:
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
26 September 1996 by the Commission of the European
Communities, represented by Paolo Ziotti of its Legal                        ( a ) the turnover tax payable on supplies of goods and
Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in                           other supplies made by other traders to the person


title: Case T-260/13: Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Ryanair Holdings v Commission

text:
               29.6.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 189/28

         Action brought on 8 May 2013 — Ryanair Holdings v Commission
   (Case T-260/13)
   2013/C 189/58
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Ryanair Holdings plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, Solicitor)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the European Commission C(2013) 1106 final of 27 February 2013 declaring a merger to be incompatible with the internal market and the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.6663 — Ryanair/Aer Lingus III);

               —

               Order the defendant to bear the costs of these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law, alleging that the Commission erred in finding, and failed to demonstrate to the requisite legal standard, that the merger, as modified by the commitments offered by the applicant, would significantly impede effective competition in the common market. The applicant also submits that the Commission violated the principle of proportionality, the principle of sound administration, and the obligation to state reasons.
   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads that the Commission made manifest errors of assessment and violated the above-mentioned principles with regard to (a) the commitments relating to the divestiture of Aer Lingus’s operations on 43 overlap routes to Flybe Group plc; (b) the commitments relating to the Dublin-London, Cork-London, and Shannon-London routes; (c) the commitments relating Aer Arann’s operation on the 43 overlap routes on which Flybe would operate, and (d) the commitments relating to the routes on which the Commission identified potential competition concerns.


title: Joined Cases C-184/15 and C-197/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud (C-184/15), Juan Carlos Castrejana López v Ayuntamiento de Vitoria (C-197/15) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clauses 5 and 8 — Use of successive fixed-term employment contracts — Measures to prevent abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships — Penalties — Reclassification of the fixed-term employment relationship as a ‘non-permanent employment contract of indefinite duration’ — Principle of effectiveness)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/18

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 September 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco — Spain) — Florentina Martínez Andrés v Servicio Vasco de Salud (C-184/15), Juan Carlos Castrejana López v Ayuntamiento de Vitoria (C-197/15)
   (Joined Cases C-184/15 and C-197/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clauses 5 and 8 - Use of successive fixed-term employment contracts - Measures to prevent abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts or relationships - Penalties - Reclassification of the fixed-term employment relationship as a ‘non-permanent employment contract of indefinite duration’ - Principle of effectiveness))
   (2016/C 419/22)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Tribunal Superior de Justicia del País Vasco

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Florentina Martínez Andrés (C-184/15), Juan Carlos Castrejana López (C-197/15)

      Defendants: Servicio Vasco de Salud (C-184/15), Ayuntamiento de Vitoria (C-197/15)

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, concluded on 18 March 1999, which is set out in the annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, from being applied by the national courts of the Member State concerned in such a manner that, in the event of abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts, a right to maintain the employment relationship is granted to persons employed by the authorities under an employment contract governed by the rules of employment law, but that right is not conferred, in general, on staff employed by those authorities under administrative law, unless there is another effective measure in the national law to penalise such abuses with regard to the latter staff, which it is for the national court to determine.

               2.

               The provisions of the framework agreement on fixed-term work which is set out in the annex to Directive 1999/70, read in conjunction with the principle of effectiveness, must be interpreted as precluding national procedural rules which require a fixed-term worker to bring a new action in order to determine the appropriate penalty where abuse resulting from the use of successive fixed-term employment contracts has been established by a judicial authority, to the extent that it results in procedural disadvantages for that worker, in terms, inter alia, of cost, duration and the rules of representation, liable to render excessively difficult the exercise of the rights conferred on him by EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 236, 20.7.2015.


title: Case T-200/12: Order of the General Court of 12 November 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission

text:
               26.1.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/69

         Order of the General Court of 12 November 2012 — Shannon Free Airport Development v Commission
   (Case T-200/12) (1)

   2013/C 26/139
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 258, 25.8.2012.


title: Case T-766/16: Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission

text:
               9.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 6/48

         Action brought on 7 November 2006 — Hércules Club de Fútbol v Commission
   (Case T-766/16)
   (2017/C 006/60)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Hércules Club de Fútbol, SAD (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: S. Rating and Y. Martínez Mata, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul European Commission Decision C (2016) 4060 final; and

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The contested decision, in so far as it relates to Hércules, concerns a loan of EUR 18 million granted by a private body to the Fundación de la Comunidad Valenciana Hércules de Alicante, another private body, which used a substantial share of the amount loaned to subscribe for shares in Hércules CF in the context of a capital increase. That loan was guaranteed by a public financial body, namely the Institut Valencià de Finances.
   The Commission claims that, as a result of that transaction, Hércules CF benefitted from State aid, amounting to the difference between the actual costs of the guaranteed loan and the costs which it would have incurred under ostensible market conditions, that difference being updated from the date on which the loan was issued to the date of the decision.
   In support of the action, the applicant invokes three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging misapplication of the Commission notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees.

                           —

                           The applicant claims in this respect that it was not ‘a firm in difficulty’ within the meaning of the 2004 Guidelines and that the loan granted took into account the risk of default and the collateral of the loan.

               2.

               Second plea in law, raised in the alternative, alleging the lack of effect on competition and trade between Member States.

                           —

                           Hercules CF claims in this respect that it was unable to compete in Europe and that the alleged aid did not confer upon it any competitive advantage.

               3.

               Third plea in law, also raised in the alternative, alleging an incorrect valuation of hypothetical aid.


title: Case C-633/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, in the presence of: P4 Sp. z o.o., Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji

text:
               30.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 202/16

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy — Poland) — Polska Izba Informatyki i Telekomunikacji v Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, in the presence of: P4 Sp. z o.o., Krajowa Izba Gospodarcza Elektroniki i Telekomunikacji
   (Case C-633/13) (1)

   2014/C 202/19
   Language of the case: Polish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8. 3. 2014.


title: Case C-124/10 P: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA (Appeal — State aid — Waiver of a tax claim — Exemption from corporation tax — Increase in share capital — Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy — Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power — Definition of ‘reference private investor’ — Principle of equal treatment — Burden of proof)

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/2

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 5 June 2012 — European Commission v Électricité de France (EDF), French Republic, Iberdrola SA
   (Case C-124/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - State aid - Waiver of a tax claim - Exemption from corporation tax - Increase in share capital - Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy - Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power - Definition of ‘reference private investor’ - Principle of equal treatment - Burden of proof)
   2012/C 217/02
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: E. Gippini Fournier, B. Stromsky and D. Grespan, acting as Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Électricité de France (EDF) (represented by: M. Debroux, avocat), French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and J. Gstalter, acting as Agents), Iberdrola SA (represented by: J. Ruiz Calzado and É. Barbier de La Serre, avocats)

      Supported by: EFTA Surveillance Authority (represented by: X. Lewis and B. Alterskjær, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of 15 December 2009, by which the General Court (Third Chamber) annulled Articles 3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 16 December 2003 on the State aid granted to EDF and the electricity and gas industries (C 68/2002, N 504/2003 and C 25/2003) — Aid granted in the form of a selective tax exemption linked to an increase in share capital during a recapitalisation of the undertaking — Conduct of a State acting as a prudent private investor in a market economy — Criteria to distinguish between the State as shareholder and the State exercising public power — Principle of equal tax treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs;

               3.

               Orders the EFTA Surveillance Authority, the French Republic and Iberdrola SA to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 161, 19.6.2010.