title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht München by order of that court of 17 September 1997 in the case of Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v. Hauptzollamt Lindau (Case C-356/97)

text:
6 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 370/3
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport                Miinchen by order of that court of 17 September 1997 in
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be                         the case of Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v.
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable                                   Hauptzollamt Lindau
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                                                (Case C-356/97)
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                                 ( 97/C 370/05 )
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway ?                       Miinchen ( Finance Court, Munich ) of 17 September 1997,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1997, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                        Wiedergeltingen eG v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs
                                                                        Office ) Lindau on the following question :
                                                                        is the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 2 ) of Commission
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                    Regulation ( EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 ( OJ L 57,
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 28 August               10 . 3 . 1993 , p. 12 ), relating to the imposition of penalties
1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                     on dairies ( purchasers of milk ), valid ?
Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck Liegenschaftsverwal
tungsgesellschaft mbH and (2 ) Bergdorf Wohnbau
Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl Hacker
                               intervening
                          ( Case C-355 /97 )                            Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                            ( 97/C 370/04 )
                                                                                ( Case C-357/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/06 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of 28 August 1997,             Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 October                  by the Commission of the European Communities,
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landesgrund              represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
verkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck              as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and ( 2 ) Bergdorf             office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its
Wohnbau Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl                        Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.
Hacker intervening, on the following question:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of                   a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                        under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                               comply with Council Directive 92/29 (') of 31 March
founded ('), which provides that notwithstanding the                         1992 concerning the minimum safety and health
obligations under the treaties on which the European                         requirements for improved medical treatment on
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its                    board vessels and/or by failing to inform the
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five                 Commission thereof; and
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995 ),
to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional                      b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
provisions in Paragraph 40 ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 ( Landesgesetzblatt fur Tirol                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 61 /1996 ), which entered into force on 1 October
1996 , fall within the definition of existing legislation,              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
or are those provisions to be regarded as new                           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
legislation if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tirol                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the                     down in the directive . That period expired on
present case ?                                                          31 December 1994 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
(') OJ C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ L 113 , 30 . 4 . 1992 , p . 19 .


title: Action brought on 12 August 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic (Case C-315/98)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 327/9
10 August 1998, received at the Court Registry on                        objective pursued by the national rules concerning the
14 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  issue of blank registration certificates if those rules
Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen Directeur van de                   make it impossible to prove that a vehicle is new? Is
Dienst Wegverkeer on the following questions:                            the answer to that question affected by the fact that a
                                                                         parallel importer may agree with his supplier in
                                                                         another Member State that, following the issue of the
1. For the purposes of applying Council Directive 83/                    foreign certificate of registration, the supplier is to
    189/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC (2),                 seek suspension of the authorisation thus granted and
    to national rules adopted on 9 December 1994, is it                  is to have that suspension lifted when the parallel
    necessary also to take into consideration the                        importer applies for registration in the country of
    amendments introduced after that date by European                    import?
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/10/EC (3), having
    regard to, inter alia, the wording used in the preamble
                                                                    (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
    to the latter directive?
                                                                    (2) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 75.
                                                                    (3) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
                                                                    (4) Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels omtrent de wijze
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does a                 waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de openbare weg op
    regulation such as the 1995 Regulation (4) fall within              het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebewijs van een voer-
    the scope of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by                    tuig wordt bepaald (Regulation laying down rules concerning
                                                                        the way in which the date of first authorisation of a vehicle
    Directive 88/182/EEC and Directive 94/10/EEC?
                                                                        for use on the public highway is to be determined for the
                                                                        purposes of entry in its registration certificate) (Staatscourant
                                                                        1994, 241).
3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
    (a) Must the term technical specification' appearing
        in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended
        by Directive 88/182/EEC, be interpreted as meaning
        that it also covers a regulation such as the 1995
        Regulation?                                                 Action brought on 12 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, does such a regulation fall within the scope                                (Case C-315/98)
        of Article 1(5) of the directive as thus amended
        (which defines the term technical regulation')?                                     (98/C 327/13)
4. Where national rules concerning the issue of blank
    registration certificates do not formally differentiate         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    between official importers and parallel importers but           the Court of Justice on 12 August 1998 by the
    in fact make it more difficult for parallel importers to        Commission of the European Communities, represented
    supply vehicles with a blank registration certificate,          by Bernard Mongin and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
    because they can obtain from abroad only vehicles               Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    which are already registered, and those rules make the          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    issue of a blank registration certificate conditional on,       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    inter alia, the relevant vehicle imported from another
    Member State having been registered in that other
    Member State for a period not exceeding two days, do
    those rules constitute a measure having an effect               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports
    which is prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?
                                                                    Ð Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                         and administrative provisions needed to implement
5. If Question 4 must be answered in the affirmative, are                Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
    rules such as those contained in the 1995 Regulation                 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping
    justified by considerations relating to road safety and/             using Community ports and sailing in the waters
    or protection of the environment, particularly on                    under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of
    account of their link with the requirements applicable               international standards for ship safety, pollution
    to vehicles and with the determination of the date                   prevention and shipboard living and working
    from which vehicles become subject to a general                      conditions (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
    obligation to undergo periodic tests?
                                                                         its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
6. If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, must such
    an obstacle to trade be regarded as proportional to the         Ð Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/10              EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                     24.10.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                   waste in the production area which, under the
                                                                      national legislation in force, may extend for one year,
                                                                      constitute temporary storage under the Community
By virtue of Article 189 of the EC Treaty, pursuant                   directives?
to which a directive is binding, as to the result to be
achieved, upon each Member State to which it is
addressed, the Member States are under an obligation to           (1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
comply with time-limits for transposition laid down
directives. In the case of the abovementioned directive, the
prescribed period expired on 30 June 1996 without the
Italian Republic having adopted the provisions needed to
comply with it.
(1) OJ L 157, 7.7.1995, p. 1.
                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
                                                                  Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale del
                                                                  Friuli, by order of that court of 16 July 1998 in criminal
                                                                       proceedings against Giancarlo Fornasar and others
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                                       (Case C-318/98)
Circondariale, Udine (Sezione distaccata di Cividale del
Friuli), by order of that court of 21 July 1998 in the                                     (98/C 327/15)
criminal proceedings pending before it against Claudio
                Chiarotti and Antonio Chillemi
                       (Case C-317/98)
                        (98/C 327/14)                             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                  the European Communities by order of the Pretura
                                                                  Circondariale di Udine, Sezione Distaccata di Cividale
                                                                  del Friuli (Udine District Magistrate's Court, Separate
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                  Chamber for Cividale del Friuli) of 16 July 1998,
European Communities by an order of the Pretura
                                                                  received at the Court Registry on 18 August 1998, for
Circondariale (District Magistrates Court), Udine, by
                                                                  a preliminary ruling in criminal proceedings against
order of that court of 21 July 1998, which was received at
                                                                  Giancarlo Fornasar and others on the following questions:
the Court Registry on 18 August 1998, for a preliminary
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before it
against Claudio Chiarotti and Antonio Chillemi on the
following questions:
                                                                  Ð For the purposes of classifying waste as hazardous
                                                                      within the meaning of Article 1(4) of Council
Ð What is the difference (if any) between temporary                   Directive 91/689/EEC (1) and Council Decision 904/94/
     storage and storage of waste pending further                     EC (2), is it necessary in each particular case to identify
     operations (or storage of materials) within the                  the origin of the waste, referred to for purposes of
     producer's premises, and what are the criteria for               classification by the list of hazardous waste adopted in
     determining in a given case which of those forms of              that decision, or is it sufficient for such purposes that,
     storage is involved?                                             by reason of its composition, the substance can only
                                                                      be used in theory in a given production process, or is
                                                                      derived as a final product from that process?
Ð Is temporary storage excluded from waste
     management' in the sense contemplated in Article 1(d)
     of Council Directive 91/156/EEC (1) and from all the
     obligations in relation thereto, including the
     notification of temporary storage to the supervisory         Ð Is the list adopted by Council Decision 904/94
     authorities?                                                     exhaustive, so that waste which is not referred to
                                                                      in the list, but which nevertheless displays the
                                                                      characteristics referred to in Annexes I, II and III to
Ð Is temporary storage subject to supervision and, if                 Directive 91/689/EEC, is excluded?
     so, to what type of measures; in that regard do
     the principles contained in the first and second
     subparagraphs of Article 4 of Directive 91/156/EEC
     apply and to what extent?
                                                                  Ð If the Court finds that the list of hazardous waste is
                                                                      not exhaustive, must automatic addition of hazardous
Ð Does the offence with which the defendants are                      waste to the list be deemed to operate on the basis of
     charged, namely the storage of 2 985 kg of dangerous             Annexes I, II and III to Directive 91/689/EEC?


title: Case T-392/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/48

         Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
   (Case T-392/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’information (Strasbourg, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 17 June 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 892/2010-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 004114864 in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864.

      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the examiner’s decision; partial refusal for registration of the trade mark applied for; decision taken subsequent to the General Court’s judgment in Case T-15/09 Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH), judgment of 9 March 2010, not published in the ECR.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the mark is not descriptive but, on the contrary, is distinctive for all of the goods and services in respect of which registration was refused.


title: Case T-205/00: Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against the Council of the European Union

text:
7.10.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 285/19
Action brought on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
115 others against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     annul the express decision of the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities of 19 July 2000 refusing to apply
                          (Case T-201/00)                                        Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations in relation
                                                                                to him;
                          (2000/C 285/34)                                  —     rule that the applicant is to be re-assigned to a third
                                                                                country by no later than 1 September 2000, in accord-
                                                                                ance with Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations;
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           —     order the Commission of the European Communities to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                        pay all the costs of the proceedings.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 31 July 2000 by Agnès Ajour and
115 others, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique                   Pleas in law and main arguments
Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                           The applicant, who is assigned to the Office for Official
The applicants claim that the Court should:                                Publications of the European Communities, is contesting the
                                                                           decision rejecting the request submitted by him on 6 June
—     annul the decisions of the Commission concerning the                 2000, by which he applied to be assigned to a third country
      drawing-up of the applicants’ pay slips for the months               pursuant to Article 3 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations of
      from September to December 1999;                                     officials. That request was rejected on the ground that the
                                                                           applicant did not fall within the category of staff covered by
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                the provision in question.
                                                                           In support of his application, he maintains that the decision in
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           issue:
The applicants, who are seconded to the Office for Veterinary              —     infringes Articles 2 and 3 of Annex X to the Staff
and Plant-Health Inspection and Control in Dublin, are con-                      Regulations;
testing their pay slips for the months from September to
December 1999, maintaining that these were drawn up on the                 —     infringes Article 2 of the Staff Regulations, as well as the
basis of the weighting for Ireland, which has been fixed                         principle of the hierarchy of appointing authorities and
without taking account of the cost of living in Dublin. They                     the principle of the hierarchy of norms;
claim that, by applying that illegal weighting for the purposes
of calculating their remuneration, the Commission has                      —     infringes the principle of the protection of legitimate
infringed Articles 64 and 65a of the Staff Regulations of                        expectations;
officials, as well as the principles of equal treatment, reasonable
career prospects and freedom of movement for workers.                      —     is vitiated by misuse of powers and abuse of process; and
                                                                           —     infringes Article 25 of the Staff Regulations.
Action brought on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacurta
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           Action brought on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A. against
                          (Case T-202/00)                                                 the Council of the European Union
                          (2000/C 285/35)                                                           (Case T-205/00)
                    (Language of the case: French)                                                  (2000/C 285/36)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 1 August 2000 by Mario Costacur-
ta, residing in Luxembourg, represented by Marc Petit, of the              An action against the Council of the European Union was
Luxembourg Bar.                                                            brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
 ---pagebreak--- C 285/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.10.2000
Communities on 3 August 2000 by RENCO S.A., established                 whether, upon the award of the contract in issue, the
in Milan (Italy), represented by Francesco Apruzzi, of the              contracting authority did actually observe the conditions laid
Brussels Bar, and Denis Philippe, of the Luxembourg Bar.                down for ensuring that the tender corresponded to the contract
                                                                        specifications.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        (1) Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning the
                                                                            coordination of procedures for the award of public works
                                                                            contracts (OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54, as corrected by L 111 of
—     annul the decision of the Council of the European
                                                                            30.4.1994, p. 115).
      Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter from the General           (2) Council Decision 93/371/EC of 20 December 1993 on public
      Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, ref.                access to Council documents (OJ L 340 of 31.12.1993, p. 43).
      IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the
      costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult against
                                                                               the Commission of the European Communities
The present action is directed against the decision of the                                        (Case T-206/00)
Council of the European Union of 4 July 2000, issued by letter
from its General Secretariat (ref. IMM-2000/3188-JB-pm),                                          (2000/C 285/37)
refusing to accede to the request made by the applicant
company for access to the administrative file concerning the
evaluation of tenders for the contract entitled ‘Installation and
maintenance works to be carried out in the buildings of the                                 (Language of the case: French)
Council of the European Union (JO/S146-107865)’, from
which that company was excluded.                                        An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities on 4 August 2000 by Merja Hult,
The contract in question, which was of a restricted nature,             residing at Howald (Grand Duchy of Luxembourg), represented
involved a study of, and the carrying-out and coordination of,          by Jean-Noël Louis and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
a general project for installation, alteration and maintenance
works in relation to the Council’s buildings.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     annul the decision of the Commission fixing the appli-
The applicant points out that, when the tender bids were                      cant’s classification on recruitment in grade A 7, step 1;
opened by the committee evaluating the tenders, it appeared
that the lowest price for the provision of the works in question        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
was that proposed by the applicant.
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant company maintains, first, that the position
adopted by the Council is not in accordance with the policy of
openness and transparency introduced and pursued by the                 The applicant in the present case, who successfully passed
Community authorities since October 1992. It further states             open competition EUR/A/123, contests the decision of the
that, so far as concerns Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC (1), as       appointing authority classifying her in grade A 7, step 1, on
well as Decision 93/371/EC (2) and the Code of Conduct for              her appointment as a category A official.
public access to documents, the defendant has not indicated
the precise provision and the interests needing to be protected         In support of her claims, the applicant pleads:
which purportedly prevent it from communicating the docu-
ments requested to the applicant. By the same token, the                —     failure to comply with the obligation to provide a
Council has not stated any reasons as to why the contents of                  statement of reasons, infringement of the second para-
the administrative file might be covered by one of the                        graph of Article 32 of the Staff Regulations and breach
exceptions provided for in Article 8 of Directive 93/37/EEC                   of the decision concerning the criteria applicable to
and/or Decision 93/371/EC.                                                    appointment in grade and classification in step of Com-
                                                                              mission officials on recruitment;
In those circumstances, the applicant is unable to assess the           —     the existence, in the present case, of a manifest error of
extent to which the decision at issue may be lawful or to verify              assessment;


title: Case C-286/00: Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Italian Republic against Commission of the European Communities

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 302/15
Does the standard fee applicable under                                          decisions to classify certain actions as ‘new aid’ within the
                                                                                meaning of Article 92 of the EC Treaty (now, after
(a)   Council Directive 85/73/EEC (1) of 29 January 1985 in                     amendment, Article 87 EC) and to initiate the procedure
      conjunction with Council Decision 88/408/EEC (2) of                       under Article 88(2) EC (ex Article 93(2) of the EC Treaty)
      15 June 1988;                                                             if they consider that the measures in question are ‘existing
                                                                                aid’ falling to be treated under the different procedure
(b) Council Directive 85/73/EEC, as amended by Council                          provided for in Article 88(1) EC (ex Article 93(1) of the
      Directive 93/118/EEC (3) of 22 December 1993,                             EC Treaty).
      for the inspection of fresh meat intended for the domestic
      market in accordance with Council Directive 64/433/                  2.   The Italian Republic submits that the Commission mani-
      EEC (4) of 26 June 1964,                                                  festly erred in law in deciding what legal basis was
                                                                                appropriate for assessing the compatibility with Com-
(a)   as amended by Directive 89/662/EEC (5) of 11 December                     munity law of the national provisions at issue: it should
      1989;                                                                     have carried out its own exhaustive analysis exclusively
(b) as amended by Directive 91/497/EEC(6) of 29 July 1991,                      in relation to the provisions of the postal directive. That
                                                                                error as regards legal basis led in this case to a clear
                                                                                infringement of essential procedural requirements and
applicable pursuant to Council Directive 88/409/EEC (7) of                      misuse of powers, in that a procedure under Article 86(3)
15 June 1988, also cover the costs involved in carrying out                     EC was initiated, whereas any criticism alleging incorrect
inspections of fresh pigmeat for trichinae?                                     transposition of the postal directive should have been
                                                                                made under the procedure provided for in Article 226 EC
( 1) OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14.                                                       (ex Article 169 of the EC Treaty).
( 2) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 24.
( 3) OJ 1993 L 340, p. 15.
( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1963-1964, p. 185.                             By taking that course of action, the Commission also
( 5) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 13.                                                      infringed Article 86(3) EC, which was not applicable to
( 6) OJ 1991 L 268, p. 69.                                                      this case, and Article 226 EC, through wrongful failure to
( 7) OJ 1988 L 194, p. 28.                                                      apply the latter.
                                                                                Finally, no reasons whatsoever were given for the Com-
                                                                                mission’s choosing a procedure different from that pre-
                                                                                scribed by Article 226 of the Treaty, although a statement
                                                                                of reasons was particularly necessary in view of the grave
Action brought on 20 July 2000 by the Italian Republic                          consequences of the choice made.
     against Commission of the European Communities
                           (Case C-286/00)
                           (2000/C 302/28)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of Justice on 20 July 2000
by the Italian Republic, represented by Ivo M. Braguglia and
Francesca Quadri, Avvocati dello Stato, with an address for
service in Luxembourg at the Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-
Adélaïde.                                                                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-
                                                                           tungsgericht by order of 27 April 2000 in the case of
                                                                           Fleischversorgung GmbH & Co. KG v Landrat of Neuss
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                Local Authority
—     annul the Commission’s letter of formal notice No SG
      (2000) — D/103687 dated 16 May 2000;
                                                                                (Case C-288/00)
—     order the Commission to pay the costs.
                                                                                (2000/C 302/29)
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
1.    The Italian Republic observes that letters before action,            Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      despite being a preliminary to a possible decision under             European Communities by order of 27 April 2000 by the
      Article 86 EC (ex Article 90 of the EC Treaty), nevertheless         Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court),
      constitute measures which have external repercussions                which was received at the Court Registry on 21 July 2000, for
      and give rise immediately to adverse legal effects for their         a preliminary ruling in the case of Fleischversorgung GmbH &
      addressees. Accordingly, it is clear that the Member                 Co. KG v Landrat (Administrative Head) of Neuss Local
      States and interested parties may challenge Commission               Authority on the following question:


title: Case C-526/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 7 October 2013 — Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/5

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 7 October 2013 — Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-526/13)
   2013/C 359/07
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Fast Bunkering Klaipėda UAB

      Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Question referred

   Must Article 148(a) of Directive 2006/112 (1) be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that paragraph concerning exemption from VAT are applicable not only to supplies to the operator of a vessel used for navigation on the high seas, who uses those goods for provisioning the vessel, but also to supplies other than to the operator of the vessel, that is to say, to undisclosed intermediaries, where at the time of the supply the ultimate use of the goods is known in advance and duly established, and evidence confirming this is submitted to the tax authority in accordance with the legislative requirements?

      (1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).


title: Case T-84/11: Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax It v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/17

         Action brought on 11 February 2011 — Antrax It v OHIM — Heating Company (Radiators for heating)
   (Case T-84/11)
   2011/C 113/34
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Antrax It Srl (Resana, Italy) (represented by: L. Gazzola, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Heating Company BVBA (The) (Dilsen, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010, in so far as it declared Community design No 000593959-0002 invalid;

               —

               annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 November 2010 in so far as it ordered Antrax It Srl to pay the costs incurred by The Heating Company BVBA in the proceedings before OHIM;

               —

               order OHIM and The Heating Company to pay Antrax It SRL the costs, dues and legal fees relating to the present proceedings, together with any additional sums required by law;

               —

               order The Heating Company BVBA to pay Antrax It Srl the costs, dues and legal fees incurred by the latter in the proceedings before OHIM, together with any additional sums required by law.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Community design No 000593959-0002 (radiators for heating)

      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The Heating Company BVBA

      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The contested Community design does not meet the requirements laid down in Articles 4 to 9 of the Community Designs Regulation (CDR), being almost identical to the German design No 4 covered by the multiple registration No 401 10481,8, published on 10 September 2002, and valid in France, Italy and Benelux as international design No DM/0608899

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: To declare the Community design invalid

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: To annul the contested decision and declare the Community design invalid

      Pleas in law: The individual character of Community design No 000593959-0002.


title: Case F-113/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Kay v Commission (Staff cases — Officials — Appointment — Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition — Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations — Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment — Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules — Article 2, Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/59

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 28 October 2010 — Kay v Commission
   (Case F-113/05) (1)

   (Staff cases - Officials - Appointment - Officials advancing to a higher function group by open competition - Candidates placed on a reserve list prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations - Transitional rules governing classification in grade at the time of recruitment - Classification in grade pursuant to the new, less favourable rules - Article 2, Article 5(2) and Article 12(3) of Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations)
   2010/C 346/118
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Roderick Neil Kay (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by T. Bontinck and J. Feld, lawyers, and subsequently by T. Bontinck and S. Woog, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Arpio Santacruz and I. Šulce, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Commission’s decision reclassifying the applicant, who was placed on the reserve list of an external competition prior to the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations, in grade pursuant to the less favourable provisions of those regulations

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses Mr Kay’s action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 36 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under the Number T-421/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-6/07: Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain

text:
               10.3.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/21

         Action brought on 12 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-6/07)
   (2007/C 56/38)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Enegren and R. Vidal Puig, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative measures necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, and in any case, by failing to communicate them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that Directive;

               —

               Order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period prescribed for the transposition into national law of Directive 2002/74 expired on 8 October 2005.

      (1)  OJ L 270, 2002, p. 10.


title: Case C-123/08: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — European arrest warrant issued against Dominic Wolzenburg (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters — Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA — European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States — Article 4(6) — Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant — Implementation in national law — Person arrested a national of the issuing Member State — Non-execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing Member State conditional upon the person having spent a period of five years in its territory — Article 12 EC)

text:
               21.11.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 6 October 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Amsterdam (Netherlands)) — European arrest warrant issued against Dominic Wolzenburg
   (Case C-123/08) (1)

   (Police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters - Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA - European arrest warrant and surrender procedures between Member States - Article 4(6) - Ground for optional non-execution of the European arrest warrant - Implementation in national law - Person arrested a national of the issuing Member State - Non-execution of the European arrest warrant by the executing Member State conditional upon the person having spent a period of five years in its territory - Article 12 EC)
   2009/C 282/14
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Dominic Wolzenburg

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Interpretation of Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1) — Possibility for the executing judicial authority to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued for the purposes of execution of a custodial sentence against a person who is staying in or a resident of the executing Member State — Concepts of ‘resident’ and ‘staying in’ — Interpretation of Articles 12 EC, 17 EC and 18 EC — National legislation allowing different treatment by the executing judicial authority of the requested person if he refuses to be surrendered, depending on whether he is a national of the executing Member State or of another Member State

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A national of one Member State who is lawfully resident in another Member State is entitled to rely on the first paragraph of Article 12 EC against national legislation, such as the Law on the surrender of persons (Overleveringswet), of 29 April 2004, which lays down the conditions under which the competent judicial authority can refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued with a view to the enforcement of a custodial sentence.

               2.

               Article 4(6) of Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a citizen of the Union, the Member State of execution cannot, in addition to a condition as to the duration of residence in that State, make application of the ground for optional non-execution of a European arrest warrant laid down in that provision subject to supplementary administrative requirements, such as possession of a residence permit of indefinite duration.

               3.

               Article 12 EC is to be interpreted as not precluding the legislation of a Member State of execution under which the competent judicial authority of that State is to refuse to execute a European arrest warrant issued against one of its nationals with a view to the enforcement of a custodial sentence, whilst such a refusal is, in the case of a national of another Member State having a right of residence on the basis of Article 18(1) EC, subject to the condition that that person has lawfully resided for a continuous period of five years in that Member State of execution.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 9.5.2008.


title: Action brought on 14 October 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic (Case C-354/97)

text:
22 . 11 . 97             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 357/25
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                            — Commission Directive 95/9/EC of 7 April 1995
                                                                                amending Directive 94/39/EC establishing a list of
                                                                                intended uses of animal feedingstuffs for particular
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive                               nutritional purposes (4),
shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the                      — Commission Directive 95/1 0/EC of 7 April 1995
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid                             fixing the method of calculating the energy value
down in the Directive . That period expired on 3 November                           of dog and cat food intended for particular
1994 without Ireland having enacted the provisions                                  nutritional purposes ( 5 ),
necessary to comply with the Directive referred to in the
conclusions of the Commission .
                                                                               and/or by failing to notify the Commission thereof, the
(') Council Directive 92/91 /EEC of 3 November 1992 concerning
                                                                               French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
    the minimum requirements for improving the safety and health               under Article 12 of Directive 93/74/EEC, Article 13 of
    protection of workers in the mineral-extracting industries                 Directive 94/28/EC, Article 2 of Directive 94/39/EC,
    through drilling ( 11th individual Directive within the meaning            Article      2 of Directive 95/9/EC and Article 3 of
    of Article 16 ( 1 ) of Directive 89/391 /EEC ( OJ L 348 , 28 . 11 .        Directive 95/ 1 0/EC and under the EC Treaty,
    1992, p. 9 ).
                                                                          — order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Action brought on 14 October 1997 by the Commission                       Under the third paragraph of Article 189 of the Treaty
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   establishing the European Community, a Directive is
                           ( Case C-3 54/97)
                                                                          binding on each Member State to which it is addressed as
                                                                          to the result to be achieved. Under the first paragraph of
                             ( 97/C 357/45 )                              Article 5 of the Treaty, Member States are to take all
                                                                          appropriate measures, whether general or particular, to
                                                                          ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the
An action against the French Republic was brought before                  Treaty or resulting from action taken by the institutions of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       the Community. Under the provisions of the Directives at
14 October 1997 by the Commission of the European                         issue, the Member States were obliged to bring into force
Communities, represented by Alexandre Xavier Lewis, of                    the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for                   necessary to comply with them by 30 June 1995 or 1 July
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la                 1995, as appropriate, and inform the Commission thereof
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           forthwith. The French Republic has not yet informed the
                                                                          Commission of the provisions of national law adopted in
                                                                          order to transpose the Directives to which these
The Commission of the European Communities claims                         proceedings relate .
that the Court should :
                                                                          (>)  OJ L  237, 22 . 9 . 1993 , p . 23 .
                                                                          (2)  OJ L  178 , 12 . 7. 1994 , p . 66 .
— declare that, by failing to bring into force within                     (')  OJ L  207, 10 . 8 . 1994 , p . 20 .
     the prescribed periods the laws, regulations                         (4 ) OJ L  91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p. 35 .
                                                                          (5)  OJ L  91 , 22 . 4 . 1995 , p. 39 .
     and administrative provisions, including, where
     appropriate, any sanctions, necessary to comply with:
     — Council Directive 93/74/EEC of 13 September
          1993 on feedingstuffs intended for particular
          nutritional purposes ('),
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C- 198/96 (')
     — Council Directive 94/28/EC of 23 June 1994                                                        ( 97/C 357/46 )
          laying down the principles relating to the
          zootechnical          and    genealogical       conditions
          applicable to imports from third countries of                   By order of 23 September 1997, the President of the Court
          animals, their semen, ova and embryos, and                      of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
          amending Directive 77/504/EEC on pure-bred                      removal from the register of Case C-198/96 : Commission
          breeding animals of the bovine species ( 2 ),                   of the European Communities v. French Republic .
                                                                          (') OJ C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
     — Commission Directive 94/39/EC of 25 July 1994
          establishing a list of intended uses of animal
          feedingstuffs for particular nutritional purposes ( 3 ),


title: Case T-185/12: Action brought on 23 April 2012 — HUK-Coburg v Commission

text:
               16.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 174/29

         Action brought on 23 April 2012 — HUK-Coburg v Commission
   (Case T-185/12)
   2012/C 174/48
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: HUK-Coburg Haftpflicht-Unterstützungs-Kasse kraftfahrender Beamter Deutschlands a.G. in Coburg (Coburg, Germany) (represented by: A. Birnstiel, H. Heinrich and A. Meier, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission of 23 February 2012 rejecting the applicant’s request for access to certain documents in cartel proceedings (COMP/39.125 — Carglass);

               —

               order the defendant to pay its own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law: failure to examine the individual documents requested
               In the context of its first plea in law, the applicant submits that the decision was not based on a concrete and individual assessment of each of the documents concerned. In the applicant’s view, the contested decision was based on the wrongful premiss that, in this case, it would generally be presumed that an exception would apply.

               2.

               Second plea in law: infringement of the duty to state reasons
               The applicant argues that the Commission provided mere blanket considerations in rejecting the application in its entirety, thereby failing to provide sufficient grounds for its decision. In the applicant’s view, this constitutes an infringement of the duty to state reasons and, thereby, an infringement of essential procedural requirements.

               3.

               Third plea in law: unlawful interpretation and application of the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1)

               By its third plea in law, the applicant submits that the Commission’s interpretation and application of the exceptions listed in the first and third indents of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 were unlawful. In its view, the Commission failed to recognise the relationship between the rule and the exceptions thereto and proceeded on the basis of a much too broad understanding of ‘protection of investigations’ and of the term ‘commercial interests’.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law: failure to take account of the fact that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, constitutes an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001
               By its fourth plea in law, the applicant maintains that, in failing to release the documents concerned, the Commission wrongly denied an overriding public interest. In the applicant’s opinion, in weighing up the interests in releasing the documents, the Commission should have taken account of the fact, in particular, that the implementation of cartel law, which is of a private law nature, also constitutes an overriding public interest within the meaning of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).


title: Case T-159/06: Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)

text:
               12.8.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/25

         Action brought on 19 June 2006 — Estancia Piedra v OHIM — Franciscan Vineyards (ESTANCIA PIEDRA)
   (Case T-159/06)
   (2006/C 190/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Estancia Piedra SL (Toro, Spain) (represented by: B. Cordery, Solicitor)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Franciscan Vineyards Inc. (St. Helena, USA)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 March 2006 (Case R 363/2005-2);

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’ for services in class 35 (information and consultancy services in relation to retailing via worldwide computer networks; import-export of wines) — Community trade mark No 2 127 868

      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Franciscan Vineyards Inc.

      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community word mark ‘ESTANCIA’ for products in classes 29, 30 and 33 (meat, fish, coffee, tea, alcoholic beverages …)

      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

      Pleas in law: Firstly, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it was concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and ‘ESTANCIA PIEDRA’. Secondly, infringement of the procedural requirements since the Board of Appeal accepted, according to the applicant, an invalid and late filed authorisation from Franciscan Vineyards for their representatives and illegitimately purported to extend the time-limit for Franciscan Vineyards to file the authorisation.


title: Case C-7/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 6 January 2016 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L. v María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz

text:
               4.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/9

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo (Spain) lodged on 6 January 2016 — Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L. v María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz
   (Case C-7/16)
   (2016/C 118/11)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Referring court

   Juzgado de Primera Instancia No 11 de Vigo

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Banco Popular Español, S.A. and PL Salvador, S.A.R.L.

      Defendants: María Rita Giráldez Villar and Modesto Martínez Baz

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, (2) as precluding judicial interpretation of a legislative provision of a Member State, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which limits its application to the declaratory stage of proceedings until such time as judgment is given, thereby precluding its application during the enforcement stage once judgment has been given or the period for contesting the claim for payment has expired, when full payment of the debt has not been made to the creditor in the meantime?

               2.

               Do the provisions of EU law cited in the first question preclude a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which permits the assignment to a third party of a disputed debt contracted between an economic operator, on the one hand, and a consumer, on the other, without requiring authentic notification to the consumer of the very fact of the assignment, the instrument of assignment or its raison d’être, and without its being necessary to indicate, and substantiate by documentary evidence (in any case), the true price for which the debt was acquired, with a statement of the reduction or discount given?

               3.

               Must the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 9 March 1978 in Case [106/77] Simmenthal
                   (3) be interpreted as meaning that, in order to attain the objective of Directive 93/13/EEC, cited in the first question referred, in the light of Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, a national court must not apply a provision of national law, like Article 1535 of the Spanish Civil Code, which precludes the exercise of the right to extinguish disputed debts in the same proceedings as those for enforcement of the debt assigned, thereby imposing on the consumer the burden of commencing fresh declaratory proceedings, within the limitation period of nine days from notification of the assignment, together with the costs which that entails (lawyer, court agent, legal fees, determination of the court having jurisdiction when the assignee is not domiciled in Spain …), against the new holder of the debt assigned in order to extinguish that debt?

      (1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  EU:C:1978:49.


title: Case C-115/13: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014  — European Commission v Hungary (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages — Directive 92/83/EEC — Setting rates of excise duty — Customised production of ethyl alcohol in a distillery subject to a rate of excise duty equal to 0 — Exemption from excise duty for the production of ethyl alcohol by private individuals)

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/13

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 10 April 2014 — European Commission v Hungary
   (Case C-115/13) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages - Directive 92/83/EEC - Setting rates of excise duty - Customised production of ethyl alcohol in a distillery subject to a rate of excise duty equal to 0 - Exemption from excise duty for the production of ethyl alcohol by private individuals))
   2014/C 175/14
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Barslev and A. Sipos, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Hungary (represented by: M. Z. Fehér, K. Szíjjártó and K. Molnár, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 19 to 21 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) read in conjunction with Article 22(7) of that directive, and Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 29) — Setting excise duties — Customised production of ethyl alcohol in a distillery subject to a rate of excise duty equal to 0 — Exemption from excise duty for the production of ethyl alcohol by private individuals

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Declares that by adopting and implementing legislation which provides that, under the conditions defined by that legislation, the customised production of ethyl alcohol in a distillery shall be subject to a rate of excise duty equal to 0 and that the production of ethyl alcohol by private individuals is exempt from excise duty, Hungary failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 19 to 21 of Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages, as amended by the of the Act concerning the conditions of accession to the European Union of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European Union is founded, read in conjunction with Article 22(7) of that directive and with Article 3(1) of Council Directive 92/84/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the approximation of the rates of excise duty on alcohol and alcoholic beverages.

               2)

               Orders Hungary to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 129 of 4.5.2013


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 2 July 1996 in Case C-473/93: Commission of the European Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Freedom of movement for persons - Employment in the public service)

text:
No C 336/4            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       9 . 11 . 96
Article 30 of the EC Treaty precludes national legislation                 tests have already been carried out in that other Member
concerning model-year dates for motor vehicles which                       State and their results are available to those authorities
causes the administrative authorities and traders of the                   or may at their request be placed at their disposal.
Member State in question to consider that, where two motor
vehicles of the same model and make are sold in that                  (>) OJ No C 370 , 24 . 12 . 1994 .
Member State after 30 June, only the vehicle which was the
subject of a parallel import would be prohibited from
holding itself out as being of the following model year.
(') OJ No C 229 , 2 . 9 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 2 July 1996
                                                                            in Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                                                                            Communities v. Grand Duchy of Luxembourg ( 1 )
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                         ( First Chamber )                            Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                         of 27 June 1996
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/08 )
in Case C-293/94 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg, Turnhout ): criminal
        proceedings against Jacqueline Brandsma (')                                    (Language of the case: French)
(Free movement ofgoods — Derogations — Protection of
public health — Powers of the Member States —                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                              Biocides)                                         published in the European Court Reports)
                           ( 96/C 336/07 )
                                                                      In Case C-473/93 : Commission of the European
                (Language of the case: Dutch)                         Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Grand
                                                                      Duchy of Luxembourg ( Agent : Alain Lorang) —
                                                                      Application for a declaration that, by maintaining a
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          nationality requirement in relation to workers who are
         published in the European Court Reports)                     nationals of other Member States as regards access to civil
                                                                      servants ' or public employees ' posts in the public sectors of
In Case C-293/94 : reference to the Court under Article 177           research , teaching, health, inland transport, posts and
of the EC Treaty by the Rechtbank van Eerste Aanleg ( First           telecommunications, and in the water, gas and electricity
Instance Court ), Turnhout ( Belgium ), for a preliminary             distribution services, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Jacqueline                 failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC
Brandsma on the interpretation of Articles 30 and 36 of the           Treaty and Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC )
EC Treaty, the Court ( First Chamber ) composed of:                   No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
D. A. O. Edward, President of the Chamber, L. Sevon                   for workers within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court
( Rapporteur ) and M. Wathelet, Judges, Advocate-General :            composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N.
N. Fennelly, Registrar: D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal                Kakouris , D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch
Administrator, has given a judgment on 27 June 1996 in                ( Presidents    of    Chambers ),    G.    F. Mancini ,     F.   A.
which it rules :                                                      Schockweiler, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn,
                                                                      C. Gulmann, J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H.
1 . A legal provision of a Member State prohibiting                   Ragnemalm , L. Sevon and M. Wathelet, Judges;
    pesticides for non-agricultural use which have not been           Advocate-General : P. Leger, Registrar: D. Loutermann
    previously authorized from being marketed, acquired,              Hubeau , Principal Administrator, has given a judgment on
    offered, put on display or sale, kept, prepared,                  2 July 1996 , in which it:
    transported, sold, disposed of for valuable
    consideration or free of charge, imported or used,                1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of
    constitutes a measure having an effect equivalent to a                 Luxembourg nationality to access to civil servants ' and
    quantitative restriction within the meaning ofArticle 30               public employees ' posts involving direct or indirect
    of the EC Treaty.                                                      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by
                                                                           public law and duties designed to safeguard the general
2 . National legislation prohibiting the marketing of a                    interests of the State or of other public authorities in the
     biocidal product containing dangerous substances, such                public sectors of research, education, health , inland
    as the product at issue, without prior authorization from              transport, posts and telecommunications, and in the
     the competent authorities is justified pursuant to                    water, gas and electricity distribution services, the
    Article 36 of the EC Treaty, even if that product has                  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its
    already been authorized for sale in another Member                     obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
    State. The competent authorities are not, however,                     Article 1 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
    entitled unnecessarily to require technical or chemical                15 October 1 968 on freedom of movement for workers
    analyses or laboratory tests when the same analyses or                 within the Community;
 ---pagebreak--- 9 . 11 . 96              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 336/5
2 . Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the                               1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
      costs .                                                                     Community;
(') OJ No C 59 , 26 . 2 . 1994 .                                            2 . Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition, 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                                                                            (') OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994 .
                                                                            ( 2 ) OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 475 .
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           of 2 July 1996
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
       in Case C-l 73/94: Commission of the European
             Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (*)                                                     of 2 July 1996
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                             in Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the                                       Communities v. Hellenic Republic ( ] )
                            public service)                                 (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                            ( 96/C 336/09 )                                 Freedom of movement for persons — Employment in the
                                                                                public service)
                                                                                ( 96/C 336/10 )
                  (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-l 73/94 : Commission of the European
Communities ( Agent: Dimitrios Gouloussis ) v. Kingdom of
Belgium ( Agent: Patrick Duray ) — Application for a                        In Case C-290/94 : Commission of the European
declaration that, by maintaining a nationality requirement                  Communities ( Agent: Maria Patakia ) v. Hellenic Republic
in relation to workers who are nationals of other Member                    ( Agents : Aikaterini Samoní-Rantou and Stamatina Vodina )
States as regards access to employment as officials or public              — Application for a declaration that, by imposing a Greek
employees of the public bodies responsible for the                          nationality condition in relation to workers who are
distribution of water, gas and electricity ( for example,                   nationals of other Member States as regards access to
Compagnie Intercommunale Bruxelloise des Eaux, Vlaamse                      employment in public, semi-public or municipal
Maatschappij voor Watervoorziening, Unerg, Sibelgaz,                        undertakings and companies distributing water, gas and
etc .), the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                     electricity, in the operational sectors of the public health
obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and                     service, to teacher posts in nursery, primary and secondary
Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of                schools and higher education establishments and
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers                          universities subject to the Ministry of National Education,
within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.                   to posts in air and sea transport services , companies or
Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.                     organizations, in the Greek National Railways ( OSE ), and
Edward, J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of                     in the public or municipal bodies, companies and
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.                        undertakings providing public city and intercity transport
Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J. L.                   services, to posts for scientific and non-scientific staff in
Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm, L. Sevón                      public establishments conducting research for non-military
and M. Wathelet, Judges ; Advocate-General : P. Leger,                      purposes, to posts in public or semi-public bodies or
Registrar:         D.        Loutermann-Hubeau,              Principal      undertakings providing postal services ( ELTA ),
Administrator, has given a judgment on 2 July 1996 , in                    telecmmunications services ( OTE ) and radio and television
which it :                                                                  broadcasting services ( ET), and as regards access to
                                                                           musicians' posts at the Athens Opera and in municipal and
                                                                            local orchestras, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
1 . Declares that, in not restricting the requirement of                    obligations pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and
      Belgian nationality to access to posts which, in the                 Articles 1 and 7 of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1612/68 of
      public legal entities responsible for the distribution of             15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers
      water, gas and electricity, involve direct or indirect               within the Community ( 2 ) — the Court composed of: G. C.
      participation in the exercise of powers conferred by                  Rodriguez Iglesias, President, C. N. Kakouris, D. A. O.
      public law and duties designed to safeguard the general               Edward , J. -P. Puissochet and G. Hirsch ( Presidents of
      interests of the State or of other public authorities, the            Chambers ), G. F. Mancini , F. A. Schockweiler, J. C.
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations              Moitinho de Almeida , P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann,
      pursuant to Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 1 of             J. L. Murray, P. Jann ( Rapporteur ), H. Ragnemalm,
      Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October                     L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; Advocate-General :


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 25 February 1999 in Case C-349/96: (reference for a preliminary ruling from the House of Lords): Card Protection Plan Ltd v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive - Package of services - Single service - Concept - Exemptions -Insurance transactions - Assistance activities - Supplies of services by insurance Intermediaries - Restriction of the insurance exemption to transactions of authorised insurer)

text:
1.5.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 121/3
Santiago de Compostela (Spain), for a preliminary ruling in the          a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
proceedings pending before that court between José Ferreiro              court between Card Protection Plan Ltd and Commissioners of
Alvite v. Instituto Nacional de Empleo and Instituto Nacional            Customs and Excise — on the interpretation of Articles
de la Seguridad Social — on the interpretation of Articles 51            2(1) and 13 B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
of the EC Treaty and 67 of Council Regulation (EEC)                      17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                  States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
security schemes to employed presons, to self-employed                   added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 13.6.1977,
persons and to members of their families moving within the               p.1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G.
Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation                  Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), G.
(EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28 30.1.1997, p. 1) — the Court (Fifth              F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N.
Chamber), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, acting as              Fennely, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward                    trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 25 February
(Rapporteur), L. Sevón and M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Albert,              1999, in which it has ruled:
Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar,
gave a judgment on 25 February 1999, in which it ruled:
The qualifying period which must have been completed in order to be
eligible for an unemployment allowance such as that introduced by        1. Article 13B(a) of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
the Spanish General Law on Social Security, as codified by Royal             17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
Legislative Decree No 1/94 of 20 June 1994, for unemployed                   States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
persons of over 52 years of age is determined by the legislation of          added tax: uniform basis of assessment is to be interpreted as
that Member state, provided that contributions paid in whole or in           meaning that a taxable person, not being an insurer, who, in the
part to the social security schemes of one or more other Member              context of a block policy of which he is the holder, procures for
States are also deemed to count towards that period.                         his customers, who are the insured, insurance cover from an
                                                                             insurer who assumes the risk covered, performs an insurance
                                                                             transaction within the meaning of that provision. The term
(1) OJ C 315, 25.11.1995.                                                    ‘insurance’ in that provision extends to the categories of assistance
                                                                             listed in the annex to First Council Directive 73/239/EEC of
                                                                             24 July 1973 on the coordination of laws, regulations and
                                                                             administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit
                                                                             of the business of direct insurance other than life assurance, as
                                                                             amended by Council Directive 84/641/EEC.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                         2. It is for the national court to determine, in the light of the above
                                                                             criteria, whether transactions such as those at issue in the main
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                     proceedings are to be regarded for the purposes of value added
                                                                             tax as comprising two independent supplies, namely an exempt
                                                                             insurance supply and a taxable card registration service, or
                      of 25 February 1999                                    whether one of those two supplies is the principal supply to which
                                                                             the other is ancillary, so that it receives the same tax treatment
                                                                             as the principal supply.
in Case C-349/96: (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the House of Lords): Card Protection Plan Ltd v.
           Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Package of services — Single service              3. Article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive 77/388EEC is to be
— Concept — Exemptions —Insurance transactions —                             interpreted as meaning that a Member State may not restrict the
Assistance activities — Supplies of services by insurance                    scope of the exemption for insurance transactions exclusively to
Intermediaries — Restriction of the insurance exemption to                   supplies by insurers who are authorised by national law to pursue
               transactions of authorised insurer)                           the activity of insurer.
                         (1999/C 121/05)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 370, 7.12.1996.
                   (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-349/96: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty from the House of Lords (United Kingdom), for


title: Case F-2/13: Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/30

         Action brought on 7 January 2013 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-2/13)
   2013/C 129/56
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for annulment of the implied decision rejecting the applicant’s request to apply to the salary received by him from May 2001 until the end of his mission in Angola the correction coefficient referred to in Articles 12 and 13 of Annex X to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the request of 24 October 2011;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the measure, whatever the form in which it was adopted, by which the Commission rejected the complaint of 21 May 2012 sent by the applicant to the appointing authority against the decision rejecting the request of 24 October 2011 and seeking the annulment of that decision and the granting of the request of 24 October 2011;

               —

               in so far as necessary, annul the note of 14 August 2012;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, for each month from March 2001 until the last month of his mission, if only de jure, carrying out duties in the EC Delegation in Angola, the sum arising from the difference (‘the difference in remuneration’) between what the applicant should have received if the correction coefficient for Angola, as referred to in Article 64 of the Staff Regulations and Articles 12 and 13 in Annex X to the regulations, had been applied de jure to his monthly salary, and what the applicant actually received by way of remuneration pursuant to Article 62 of the regulations;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of every difference in remuneration, interest by way of compensation for the delay on its part in paying the sums in question, at the rate of 10 per annum, with annual capitalisation, with effect from the date on which each monthly instalment of his remuneration was paid, or should have been paid to the applicant, until actual payment of the differences in remuneration;

               —

               order the Commission to pay to the applicant, in respect of each difference in remuneration, compensation for the erosion of purchasing power, by reference to the annual variations in the cost of living index for Brussels, referred to in Article 1 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulation as the ‘Brussels International Index’, or any other such index which the Court may deem it fair and equitable to apply in the present case, with annual capitalisation, with effect from the date on which each monthly instalment of the applicant’s remuneration was paid or should have been paid until actual payment of the compensation in question;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the cost.