title: Case C-45/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijsleven by order of that court of 2 February 2005 in Maatschap Schonewille-Prins v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijsleven by order of that court of 2 February 2005 in Maatschap Schonewille-Prins v Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit
   (Case C-45/05)
   (2005/C 93/18)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and Industry) (Netherlands) of 2 February 2005, received at the Court Registry on 8 February 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Maatschap Schonewille-Prins and Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 (1) to be interpreted as meaning that any irregularity in complying with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 in respect of an animal results in the complete exclusion of slaughter premium for that animal?

               2.

               If question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is Article 21 of Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 then binding, in particular regarding the resulting consequences?

               3.

               Are Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 (2) applicable to irregularities in complying with Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000? (3)

               4.

               If question 3 is to be answered in the affirmative, does the correct application of Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 in conjunction with Article 44 mean that the exclusion of slaughter premium is not applicable to an omission relating to the notification of information to the keeper of the computerised database if the information provided, such as in this case the dates of delivery, is factually entirely accurate (and was also correct from the very beginning and therefore did not need to be amended)? If this does not apply to every omission, does it apply in the situation at issue in this dispute, where the omission has consisted of the late provision of information (by a few days or a few weeks), with slaughter taking place some considerable time later?

               5.

               Is Article 11 of Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 (4) and/or Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 and/or Article 47(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 to be interpreted as meaning that a Member State is authorised to exclude the Community right to a slaughter premium or apply reductions to it by means of a national sanction to ensure compliance with the provisions of the Regulation?

               6.

               If question 5 is to be answered wholly or partially in the affirmative, do the exceptions from Community reductions and exclusions laid down at Community level, in particular Articles 44 and 45 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001, apply by analogy to national reductions and exclusions?

               7.

               If question 6 is to be answered in the affirmative, does a correct application of Article 45 of Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 in conjunction with Article 44 mean that omissions relating to the notification of information to the computerised database, in particular the late provision of information, cannot result in the exclusion of slaughter premium if the information in the register, such as in this case the date of delivery, is factually entirely accurate?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (OJ 1999 L 160, p. 21).

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 2419/2001 of 11 December 2001 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3508/92 (OJ 2001 L 327, p. 11).

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1760/2000 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 July 2000 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 (OJ 2000 L 204, p. 1).

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3887/92 of 23 December 1992 laying down detailed rules for applying the integrated administration and control system for certain Community aid schemes (OJ 1992 L 391, p. 36).


title: Case C-387/11: Action brought on 19 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               15.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/4

         Action brought on 19 July 2011 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-387/11)
   2011/C 305/04
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: W. Mölls and C. Soulay, Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by maintaining different rules for the taxation of income from capital and immovable property earned by Belgian investment companies and the taxation of income from capital and immovable property earned by foreign investment companies, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 49 and 63 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Articles 31 and 40 of the European Economic Area Agreement;

               —

               order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the Commission criticises the different treatment of resident investment companies and non-resident investment companies as regards taxation of revenue from capital and immovable property. Unlike resident investment companies, non-resident investment companies which do not have a fixed establishment in the national territory are not permitted to recover the amount paid by way of withholding tax on income from capital and immovable property. That discrimination is incompatible with the provisions of the Treaty on freedom of establishment, inasmuch as it makes the founding of non-resident investment companies less attractive, and with the provisions of the Treaty on free movement of capital, inasmuch as the financing of a Belgian company by a foreign investment company is more costly than financing through a Belgian investment company.
   Furthermore, the Commission rejects the justifications put forward by the Belgian authorities. First of all, the Belgian authorities did not plead objective grounds justifying the conclusion that there is any difference between the situations of resident investment companies and non-resident investment companies which is relevant to their tax status. Secondly, the tax scheme in question bears no relation to a balanced division of the power of taxation between the States concerned. In any event, a member State cannot rely on a bilateral convention to escape from its obligations under the Treaty. Finally, as regards the alleged risk of tax fraud by non-resident investment companies, the Belgian authorities cannot rely on obstacles to tax inspections which result from the provisions adopted by Belgium itself to justify failure to apply the freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty.


title: Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen against the European Community, represented by the Council and the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-179/96)

text:
No C 9/20          I EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    11 . 1 . 97
and, secondly, by failing to take all due care or make                   levy due from the applicant or from the partnership of
every effort to be in a position to put forward a proposal               which he formed part, as the case may be, in respect
to the Council concerning the fixing of new weightings for               of the milk produced by them following the expiry of
Zaire for the periods from July 1993 to August 1996 .                    the non-marketing undertaking ( i.e. production in the
                                                                         milk marketing years 1989/1990 to 1995/ 1996
Lastly, the applicant maintains that, in his regard, the                 inclusive ), together with the interest which is due on
Commission acted contrary to the principles of non                      that sum to those entitled to claim payment of the said
discrimination against the applicant and treated him less                supplementary levy from the applicant (5 % as from
favourably than officials in other countries who benefited               1 . September 1996 ),
from weightings in excess of 100 and part of whose
salaries, over the same period, were subject to the                 — order the Community to pay him the sum of
appropriate weightings . Although the data for the period                HF1 58 695 (the sum resulting from the application of
from July 1993 to August 1996 were not entirely reliable                 Regulation ( EEC ) No 2187/93 over the periods
on account of the looting in Kinshasa , that situation could             following the expiry of the non-marketing
in no circumstances justify discarding the weighting factor              undertaking, during which the applicant or his
indicating that the cost of living over the preceding                    predecessor in title, as the case may be, produced no
months had been more than twice the reference level . For                milk, together with compensatory interest from the
Russia, owing to the same problems in relation to local                  date when the damage arose until the date of
currency, with effect from 1 January 1994 a weighting                    judgment in the Mulder II case ( 19 May 1992 )), with
was fixed on the basis of an economic parity expressed in                interest thereon at the rate of 8 % per annum until
US dollars .                                                             settlement in full, as laid down in the judgment in
                                                                         Mulder II,
                                                                    — order the Community to pay him the sum of
                                                                         HFl 180 322,20, representing the costs of obtaining a
                                                                         substitute reference quantity equal to the reference
Action brought on 11 November 1996 by J. Antonissen                      quantity to which the applicant would have been
against the European Community, represented by the                       entitled pursuant to Article 3a of Regulation ( EEC )
Council and the Commission of the European                               No 857/84 had he, at the time, been operating the
                          Communities                                    holding in respect of which the non-marketing
                       ( Case T-179/96 )                                 undertaking was given by Mr Herbrink in 1979,
                           ( 97/C 9/36 )
                                                                    — order the Community to pay the costs .
               (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
An action against the European Community, represented
by the Council and the Commission of the European                   These proceedings are connected with Case C-98/91
Communities, was brought before the Court of First                  Herbrink ( judgment of the Court of 27 January 1994 ).
Instance of the European Communities on 11 November                 The applicant is the successor of Mr Herbrink. Following
1996 by J. Antonissen, residing at Giethem ( the                    the judgment of the Court, Mr Herbrink was definitively
Netherlands ), represented by E. H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of           refused the allocation of a SLOM quota, on the ground
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in                   that he no longer operated the original SLOM holding;
Luxemburg at the Chambers of L. Frieden, 62 avenue                  the lease in respect of it was not extended, since he was
Guillaume .                                                         not in possession of a milk quota .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— declare that the Community is obliged to make good
    the damage which the applicant has suffered, and may
    suffer in the future, as a result of the refusal to             Action brought on 27 November 1996 by Mireille
    allocate a specific reference quantity to the applicant                   Meskens against the European Parliament
    or his predecessor in title, Mr A. A. Herbrink, since                                    Case T- 194/96 )
    the termination on 17 May 1984 of the non-marketing
    undertaking given by Mr Herbrink pursuant to                                               ( 97/C 9/37 )
    Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1087/77, on the sole
    ground that, since 1987, for reasons which cannot be                             (Language of the case: French)
    attributed to them, neither the applicant nor Mr
    Herbrink has continued to operate, either wholly or in          An action against the European Parliament was brought
    part, the holding on which Mr Herbrink produced                 before the Court of First Instance of the European
    milk prior to giving the aforementioned non-marketing           Communities on 27 November 1996 by Mireille Meskens,
    undertaking,                                                    residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noel Louis,
                                                                    Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel , all of the Brussels
— order the Community to pay him the sum of                         Bar, with an address for service in Luxemburg at the
    HFl 258 565,38 , corresponding to the supplementary             offices of Fiduciaire Myson SARL ., 30 rue de Cessange.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  27 October 2005  in Joined Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321/04 to C-325/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Étienne: Nazairdis SAS and Others v Caisse nationale de l'organisation autonome d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs non salariés des professions industrielles et commerciales (Organic) (Concept of aid — Tax assessed on the basis of sales area — Hypothecation of the tax revenue)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (First Chamber)
   of 27 October 2005
   in Joined Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321/04 to C-325/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Étienne: Nazairdis SAS and Others v Caisse nationale de l'organisation autonome d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs non salariés des professions industrielles et commerciales (Organic) (1)

   (Concept of aid - Tax assessed on the basis of sales area - Hypothecation of the tax revenue)
   (2005/C 330/10)
   Language of the case: French
   In Joined Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04, C-276/04 and C-321/04 to C-325/04: references for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Saint-Étienne (Cases C-266/04 to C-270/04 and Case C-276/04) and the Cour d'appel de Lyon (Cases C-321/04 to C-325/04) (France), made by Decisions of 5 April and 24 February 2004, received at the Court on 24, 25 and 29 June and 27 July 2004, in the proceedings pending before those courts between Distribution Casino France SAS, formerly Nazairdis SAS (Case C-266/04), Jaceli SA (Case C-267/04), Komogo SA (Case C-268/04 and Case C-324/04), Tout pour la maison SARL (Case C-269/04 and Case C-325/04), Distribution Casino France SAS (Case C-270/04), Bricorama France SAS (Case C-276/04), Distribution Casino France 3 SAS (Case C-321/04), Société Casino France, successor to IMQEF SA, successor to JUDIS SA (Case C-322/04), Dechrist Holding SA (Case C-323/04) and Caisse nationale de l'organisation autonome d'assurance vieillesse des travailleurs non salariés des professions industrielles et commerciales (Organic) — the Court: (First Chamber) composed of K. Schiemann, President of the Fourth Chamber, acting for the President of the First Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur), E. Juhász and M. Ilešič, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General, L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 27 October 2005, in which it ruled:
   Articles 87(1) EC and 88(3) EC are to be interpreted as not precluding the levy of a tax such as the French tax to support the trade and craft sectors.

      (1)  OJ C 228 of 11.09.2004.

      OJ C 201 of 07.08.2004.

      OJ C 239 of 25.09.2004.


title: Case T-119/07: Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Italy v Commission

text:
               9.6.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/24

         Action brought on 16 April 2007 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-119/07)
   (2007/C 129/41)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Aiello, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul Commission Decision C (2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The action is brought against Decision C (2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in the Gardanne region, in the Shannon region and in Sardinia applied by France, Ireland and Italy respectively. That decision declared lawful 80 % of the amount of the tax exemptions granted by the Italian Government to Euroallumina SpA, requiring recovery of the remaining 20 % of the amount of relief accorded to the beneficiary from 1 January 2004.
   In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:

               —

               Infringement of Article 87(1) of the Treaty, in so far as the contested decision held that the exemption from the excise duty provided for in the Italian system is State aid. It is stated in that respect that, as confirmed by the wording of Directive 2003/96/EC (1), the exemptions from excise duty in question do not constitute State aid but come within the nature and the logic of the national tax system. In fact, if they were State aid the directive cited expressly authorises said aid, at least for a period until 31 December 2006. With regard to the alleged selective character of the measures under consideration, it is observed that the same are addressed in general to all businesses using mineral oils for the production of aluminium oxide. The fact that there is only one plant in Italy at which such mineral oils are used in the production cycle is of purely factual relevance and is not capable of undermining the general scope of the provision.

               —

               Infringement of Article 87(3) of the Treaty and of the Community guidelines on national regional aid for 1998, since the contested exemption from excise duty in issue in the present case is to be regarded as necessary for the economic development of the region of Sardinia.

               —

               Infringement of point 51 of E. 3.2 of the Community guidelines on State aid for environmental protection (2001/C 37/03), in so far as in the present case there were specific agreements between the State granting the aid and the recipient firm on the improvement of environmental results.

               —

               Finally, infringement of the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations and the presumption of the legality of Community provisions.

      (1)  Council Directive 2003/96/EC of 27 October 2003 restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products and electricity (OJ L 283 of 31.10.2003, p. 51).


title: Case T-390/15: Action brought on 16 July 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — PepsiCo (3D)

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/53

         Action brought on 16 July 2015 — Perfetti Van Melle Benelux v OHIM — PepsiCo (3D)
   (Case T-390/15)
   (2015/C 311/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Perfetti Van Melle Benelux BV (Breda, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Testa, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: PepsiCo, Inc. (New York, United States)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Applicant: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community black and white figurative mark containing the word elements ‘3D’ — Application for registration No 9 384 041

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 08/05/2015 in Case R 465//2014-5

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision, admitting application No 009384041 to registration for the following goods: chocolate; pastry; confectionary; candies; chew candies; drops; gumdrops; caramel; chewing gum; bubble gums; lollipops; licorice; jellies (confectionery); toffee; mints; sweets

               —

               order PepsiCo, Inc. to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-266/99: Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 281/4                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                     2.10.1999
     The new legislation enacted in 1998 will produce effects              — Infringement of Article 4(2) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     only in relation to the future, and does not put an end to                Commission states that there has been a considerable delay
     the discriminatory taxation suffered by the vehicles the                  (from 1977 to 1993, namely 17 years) on the part of the
     subject-matter of the proceedings which had already been                  French authorities in adopting measures pursuant to their
     placed in circulation in France prior to 1 July 1998.                     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC, despite the fact
                                                                               that, on the French authorities’ own admission, the prob-
(Vehicles given type-approval on an isolated basis between                     lems concerning pollution of surface water have been
1 January 1978 and 12 January 1988)                                            apparent since the 1980s. The continuing degradation of
                                                                               the quality of surface water by pollution caused by nitrates
— Infringement of Article 90 EC: the Commission considers                      proves the ineffectiveness of the measures constituting
     that the fact that the French authorities limited changes to              the systematic plan of action submitted by the French
     the power rating for administrative purposes of the foreign               authorities.
     vehicles discriminated against, by issuing new registration
     documents only for vehicles which had been given type-                — Infringement of Article 4(3) of Directive 75/440/EEC: the
     approval, with immediate tax consequences, shows that                     use of poor-quality water for the abstraction of drinking
     they only partially took into consideration the judgment                  water, which is in principle prohibited, is possible only if
     in Feldain (1).                                                           the two cumulative conditions are complied with; those
                                                                               conditions have not been fulfilled. In numerous cases, the
                                                                               drinking water thus abstracted exceeds the maximum
(1) Case 433/85 Feldain v Services Fiscaux du Département du Haut-Rhin         permissible nitrate content; for this reason, the French
    (1987) ECR 3521.                                                           authorities state that ‘women who are pregnant or breast-
                                                                               feeding are strongly advised not to drink this water during
                                                                               the period of non-conformity’. Moreover according to the
                                                                               Commission’s findings, the French authorities have failed
                                                                               to establish management plans within the meaning of
                                                                               Article 4(3) where these have proved necessary.
                                                                           (1) OJ L 194 of 25.7.1975, p. 26.
Action brought on 16 July 1999 by the Commission of
 the European Communities against the French Republic
                         (Case C-266/99)
                         (1999/C 281/06)
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’ar-
An action against the French Republic was brought before the               rondissement de Luxembourg by judgment of that court
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 16 July                    of 15 July 1999 in the case of Urbing (née Adam) against
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                         the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domaines
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                              (Case C-267/99)
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                                              (1999/C 281/07)
the Court should:                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                           European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’arron-
— declare that, by failing to take the necessary measures to               dissement de Luxembourg (District Court, Luxembourg) of
     ensure that surface water intended for the abstraction of             15 July 1999, received at the Court Registry on 19 July 1999,
     drinking water conforms to the values laid down pursuant              for a preliminary ruling in the case of Urbing (née Adam)
     to Article 3, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its            against the Administration de l’Enregistrement et des Domai-
     obligations under Directive 75/440/EEC (1), in particular             nes (Land Registration and Estates Department) on the follow-
     Article 4 thereof;                                                    ing questions:
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.                              1. Is the concept of a liberal profession as referred to
                                                                               in point 2 of Annex F to the Sixth Council Directive
                                                                               77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes (1) an autonomous
                                                                               concept of Community law?
The infringement found by the Commission in its reasoned
opinion to have been committed relates exclusively to the                  2. If so, does that concept cover the profession of property
failure properly to apply the directive in the region of Brittany              agent?
alone.
— Infringement of Article 4(1) of Directive 75/440/EEC: in                 (1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.77, p. 1.
     the 4 departments concerned, the surface water fails,
     constantly and on a wide scale, to conform to the values
     laid down pursuant to Article 3.


title: Case C-181/15 P: Appeal brought on 22 April 2015 by Marpefa, S.L. against the order of 3 February 2015 of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) in Case T-708/14, Marpefa v OHIM

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/12

         Appeal brought on 22 April 2015 by Marpefa, S.L. against the order of 3 February 2015 of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) in Case T-708/14, Marpefa v OHIM
   (Case C-181/15 P)
   (2015/C 381/14)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Marpefa, S.L. (represented by: I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, abogado)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs),
   Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment
   By order of 6 October 2015, the Court of Justice (Seventh Chamber) dismissed the appeal.


title: Case C-471/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg lodged on 28 September 2010 — Martin Wohl and Ildiko Veres v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, Other party: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

text:
               4.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 328/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg lodged on 28 September 2010 — Martin Wohl and Ildiko Veres v Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg, Other party: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt
   (Case C-471/10)
   ()
   2010/C 328/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat Salzburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Martin Wohl and Ildiko Veres

      Defendant: Magistrat der Stadt Salzburg

      Other party: Finanzamt Salzburg-Stadt

      Question referred

   Is Annex X of the list referred to in Article 24 of the Act of Accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union (1. Freedom of movement for persons) (1) to be interpreted as meaning that the leasing of workers from Hungary to Austria cannot be regarded as a posting of those workers and that national restrictions concerning the employment of Hungarian/Slovakian workers in Austria apply equally, in Austria, in respect of Hungarian/Slovak workers (regularly employed in Hungary) leased by Hungarian undertakings?

      (1)  OJ 2003 L 236, p. 846.


title: Case C-167/07: Action brought on 29 March 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/19

         Action brought on 29 March 2007 — Kingdom of Spain v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-167/07)
   (2007/C 117/31)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: N. Díaz Abad, agent)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 41/2007 (1) of 21 December 2006 fixing for 2007 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations are required, to the extent that specific quotas are not allocated to the Spanish fleet in the Community waters of the North Sea and

               —

               Order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   (1)   Infringement of the principle of non-discrimination:
   The Kingdom of Spain believes that, to the extent that the contested regulation does not allocate to Spain quotas in the Community waters of the North Sea, there is an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination, given that, on the expiry of the transitional period stipulated in the Act of Accession, all other Member States are recognised to have the right of access to those waters and their resources, whereas the Kingdom of Spain is recognised to have the right of access only to those waters.
   (2)   Misinterpretation of the Act of Accession of Spain:
   The Act of Accession in laying down rules concerning the transitional period for Spain in relation to fisheries does not distinguish between access to waters and access to resources. Moreover, the provisions of the Act of Accession should be interpreted to accord with its context and purposes.
   (3)   Infringement of Article 20(2) of Regulation 2371/2002 (2):
   The provision is infringed in that no quotas are allocated to Spain in respect of new fishing opportunities established and distributed for the first time after the expiry of the transitional period specified in the Act of Accession.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 15, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy (OJ 2002 L 358, p. 59).


title: Case T-333/08: Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Bull and Others v Commission

text:
               8.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 285/42

         Action brought on 11 August 2008 — Bull and Others v Commission
   (Case T-333/08)
   (2008/C 285/79)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Bull SAS (Les Clayes-sous-Bois, France), Unisys Belgium SA (Brussels, Belgium) and Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) SA (Capellen, Luxembourg) (represented by: B. Lombaert and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested decision, namely:

                           —

                           the rejection of the tender of Consortium B-Trust

                           —

                           the decision not to award the contract

                           —

                           the decision to open a negotiated procedure;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicants challenge the Commission's decision to reject their tender submitted in connection with the call for tenders procedure concerning contract ‘DIGIT/R2/PO/2007/024 — Managed services provision’ (OJ 2007 S 159 — 197776) and the decision not to award the contract in the absence of satisfactory tenders and to open the negotiated procedure.
   In support of their application, the applicants claim, first of all, that the contested decision was not taken in compliance with the rules for the conferral of powers within the Commission, since the decision was taken by an ‘Acting Head of Unit’. The applicants take the view that it was not established that the author of the measure was in fact entitled to adopt such a decision in the Commission's name.
   Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed its obligation to state reasons by not setting out, in its decision, the grounds on which it considered that certain prices in the applicant's tender were unusually low and that the tender did not comply with the relevant legal provisions in the event of performance of the contract in Brussels or Luxembourg.
   Finally, the applicants consider that the Commission infringed the procedure for checking that the prices were lawful, in so far as (i) the Commission excluded the applicant's tender on the basis of the procedure in respect of unusually low prices, whereas the tender was financially sound, (ii) the Commission did not take into account the reasons provided by the applicants and (iii) the contested decision was not based on an accurate account of the facts.


title: Case F-62/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2008 — Ghem v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/63

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 13 February 2008 — Ghem v Commission
   (Case F-62/05) (1)

   (2008/C 223/121)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Second Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 229, 17.9.2008, p. 31 (initial judgment by the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-270/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by Order of 15 December 2005).


title: Joined Cases C-322/07 P, C-327/07 P and C-338/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Bolloré SA, Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL v Commission of the European Communities (Appeals — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — Carbonless paper — Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision — Infringement of the rights of the defence — Consequences — Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence — Participation in the infringement — Duration of the infringement — Regulation No 17 — Article 15(2) — Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Principle of equal treatment — Principle of proportionality — Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based — Reasonable period for duration of proceedings before the Court of First Instance)

text:
               24.10.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 256/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 3 September 2009 — Papierfabrik August Koehler AG, Bolloré SA, Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL v Commission of the European Communities
   (Joined Cases C-322/07 P, C-327/07 P and C-338/07 P) (1)

   (Appeals - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Carbonless paper - Inconsistency between the statement of objections and the contested decision - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Consequences - Distortion of the clear sense of the evidence - Participation in the infringement - Duration of the infringement - Regulation No 17 - Article 15(2) - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Principle of equal treatment - Principle of proportionality - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Reasonable period for duration of proceedings before the Court of First Instance)
   2009/C 256/04
   Languages of the case: German, French and Spanish

      Parties

      Appellants: Papierfabrik August Koehler AG (represented by: I. Brinker and S. Hirsbrunner, Rechtsanwälte, J. Schwarze, professeur), Bolloré SA (represented by: C. Momège and P. Gassenbach, avocats), Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL (represented by: E. Pérez Medrano and T. Díaz Utrilla, abogados)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: W. Mölls and F. Castillo de la Torre, acting as Agents, H.-J. Freund, Rechtsanwalt, N. Coutrelis, avocat)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02 Bolloré and Others v Commission — Price fixing agreement in the carbonless paper sector — Infringement of rights of defence in respect of the proof that the appellant participated in the infringement committed prior to October 1993 (erroneous, insufficient and contradictory proof) — Infringement of the principles of equal treatment and proportionality in respect of the setting of the amount of the fine (since the appellant is a family business which does not have access to capital markets)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 26 April 2007 in Joined Cases T-109/02, T-118/02, T-122/02, T-125/02, T-126/02, T-128/02, T-129/02, T-132/02 and T-136/02 Bolloré and Others v Commission in so far as it concerns Bolloré SA.

               2.

               Annuls Commission Decision 2004/337/EC of 20 December 2001 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/E-1/36.212 — Carbonless paper) in so far as it relates to Bolloré SA.

               3.

               Dismisses the appeals brought by Papierfabrik August Koehler AG and Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL.

               4.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs at first instance and on appeal in Case C-327/07 P.

               5.

               Orders Papierfabrik August Koehler AG to pay the costs in Case C-322/07 P and Distribuidora Vizcaína de Papeles SL to pay the costs in Case C-338/07 P.

      (1)  OJ C 223, 22.9.2007.


14.7.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 200/55
            destination that the accompanying health certificate                 Removal from the register of Case C-286/00 (1)
            include the said declaration?
                                                                                (2001/C 200/100)
(1) Council Directive 91/68/EEC of 28 January 1991 on animal
    health conditions governing intra-Commuity trade in ovine and         By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
    caprine animals (OJ L 46, 19.2.1991, p. 19).                          of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
(2) Council Directive 89/662/EEC of 11 December 1989 concerning           the register of Case C-286/00: Italian Republic v Commission
    veterinary checks in intra-Community trade with a view to the         of the European Communities.
    completion of the internal market (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 13).
(3) Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning
    veterninary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra-Com-          (1) OJ C 302 of 21.10.2000.
    munity trade in certain live animals and products with a view to
    the completion of the internal market (OJ L 224; 18.8.1990,
    p. 29).
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-367/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case C-158/95 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/101)
                         (2001/C 200/98)
                                                                          By order of 2 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
By order of 23 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  the register of Case C-367/00: Commission of the European
the register of Case C-158/95: Federal Republic of Germany v              Communities v French Republic.
Commission of the European Communities.
                                                                          (1) OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000.
(1) OJ C 208 of 12.8.1995.
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case C-428/00 (1)
       Removal from the register of Case         C-102/01 (1)
                                                                                (2001/C 200/102)
                         (2001/C 200/99)
By order of 27 April 2001 the President of the Court of Justice           By order of 4 May 2001 the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities has ordered the removal from                  of the European Communities has ordered the removal from
the register of Case C-102/01: Italian Republic v Commission              the register of Case C-428/00: (reference for a preliminary
of the European Communities.                                              ruling from Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen): Merz +
                                                                          Co. GmbH & Co. v AOK-Bundesverband and Others.
(1) OJ C 118 of 21.4.2001.                                                (1) OJ C 79 of 10.3.2001.


title: Case C-325/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Ismail Derin v Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg (EEC-Turkey Association — Article 59 of the Additional Protocol — Articles 6, 7 and 14 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Right of free access to employment under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 — Corollary right of residence — Turkish national over the age of 21 years who is no longer dependent on his parents — Criminal convictions — Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights — Compatibility with the rule that the Republic of Turkey is not to receive more favourable treatment than that applicable between Member States)

text:
               6.10.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 235/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Germany) — Ismail Derin v Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg
   (Case C-325/05) (1)

   (EEC-Turkey Association - Article 59 of the Additional Protocol - Articles 6, 7 and 14 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council - Right of free access to employment under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 - Corollary right of residence - Turkish national over the age of 21 years who is no longer dependent on his parents - Criminal convictions - Conditions governing the loss of acquired rights - Compatibility with the rule that the Republic of Turkey is not to receive more favourable treatment than that applicable between Member States)
   (2007/C 235/07)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ismail Derin

      Defendant: Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt — Interpretation of the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC-Turkey Association Council and of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol relating to the transitional stage provided for in the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey signed on 23 November 1970 (OJ 1973 C 113, p. 17) — No loss of right of free access to any paid employment and of the resulting right of residence for a Turkish national who entered the national territory in order to join his family, in circumstances where he is now over 21 years of age and no longer maintained by his parents — More favourable treatment than that given to nationals of the Member States
   Operative part of the judgment
   A Turkish national, who was authorised while he was a child to enter the territory of a Member State in order to join his family and who has acquired the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Association Agreement between the European Economic Community and Turkey, loses the right of residence in the host Member State which is a corollary of that right of free access only in two situations, that is:

               —

               in the circumstances provided for in Article 14(1) of that decision, or

               —

               if he leaves the territory of the Member State concerned for a significant length of time without legitimate reason,

         even though he is over 21 years of age, is no longer dependent on his parents, but lives independently in the Member State concerned, and was not available to join the labour force for several years because he was during that period serving an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment. Such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol signed at Brussels on 23 November 1970 and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2760/72 of 19 December 1972.

      (1)  OJ C 281, 12.11.2005.


title: Case C-164/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim by order of 13 April 1999 in the proceedings concerning the imposition of a fine on Portugaia Construcoes Lda

text:
17.7.1999              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 204/27
— whether Regulation (EC) No 343/94, requiring Italy to                       — maintaining in force Article 15, Title IV of Law No 409
     distil 12 150 000 hl, is unlawful for infringement of                         of 24 July 1985, which refers to Article 1 of Law
     Article 39(11) (b) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 (as                          No 1398 of 14 December 1964, having the effect that
     amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1972/87) for the reasons                       only Italian citizens may remain registered in case of
     set out above;                                                                transfer of residence to another Member State.
— in the ... event that Article 39(11)(b) of Regulation (EEC)            2. Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
     No 822/87 (as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1972/87)
     is to be interpreted as authorising such a system of
     calculation [used in Regulation (EEC) No 343/94] whether            Pleas in law and main arguments
     Article 39(11)(b) is unlawful for infringement of the prin-
     ciple of reasonableness, manifest error and inconsistency           The residence obligation may give rise to discrimination in
     in relation to the object pursued, and for infringement of          relation to medical practitioners established in other Member
     the prohibition on discrimination under Article 40 of the           States, since it can be fulfilled more easily by Italian citizens.
     Treaty;                                                             That obligation makes exercise of the profession of dentist in
                                                                         Italy impossible for a practitioner established in another
— whether Article 39(3) (4) and (11) of Regulation (EEC)                 Member State, even close to the border. By contrast, a dentist
     No 822/87, as amended by Regulation (EC) 1566/93, and               established in Italy — especially in the border area — may
     Regulation (EEC) No 343/94 which implements the former              open a branch surgery in another Member State without being
     measures, are unlawful for infringement of the principle of         subject to any condition of residence in that State. As a
     reasonableness, manifest error, misuse of powers and                consequence, the Italian rules apply more strictly to dentists of
     infringement of the principle of proportionality.                   other Member States than to those established in Italian
                                                                         territory.
(1) Commission Regulation of 15 February 1994 (OJ L 44 of
    17.2.1994, p. 9).                                                    Obligatory cancellation from the register in the event of
(2) Council Regulation of 16 March 1987 (OJ L 84 of 27.3.1987,           residence being transferred abroad has the effect of making it
    p. 26).                                                              impossible for non-residents to open a dental surgery in Italian
(3) OJ L 184 of 3.7.1987, p. 26.                                         territory. Such a measure is discriminatory in that it does not
(4) Referred to in the third indent of Article 39(3) of Regulation       prohibit dentists established and resident in Italy from opening
    No 822/87.                                                           a branch surgery in another Member State on condition that
                                                                         they remain resident in the practising district to which they
                                                                         belong in Italy.
Action brought on 30 April 1999 by the Commission of
  the European Communities against the Italian Republic                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                         Tauberbischofsheim by order of 13 April 1999 in the
                         (Case C-162/99)                                 proceedings concerning the imposition of a fine on
                                                                                Portugaia Construcoes Lda
                         (1999/C 204/49)
                                                                                (Case C-164/99)
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the                                      (1999/C 204/50)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by Francesco Ruggeri Laderchi and Bernard Mon-               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
gin, of its Legal Service, acting as Agents, with an address for         European Communities by order of 13 April 1999 from the
service in Luxembourg at the offices of Carlos Gómez de la              Amtsgericht Tauberbischofsheim (Local Court, Tauber-
Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                          bischofsheim), which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                         4 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                         concerning the imposition of a fine on Portugaia Construcoes
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              Lda on the following questions:
1. Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its            1. Is an interpretation of Directive 96/71/EC of the European
     obligations under Articles 39 and 43 (formerly Articles 48               Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996
     and 52) of the EC Treaty by:                                             concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the
                                                                              provision of services (OJ 1997 L 18, p. 1) or, if that
     — allowing the Legislative Decree of the Provisional                     directive is not applicable, an interpretation of Article 59
         Head of State No 233 of 13 September 1946, despite                   et seq. of the EC Treaty, under which overriding require-
         amendment by Article 9 of Law No 362 of 8 Novem-                     ments of public interest capable of justifying a restriction
         ber 1991, to remain in force in such a way as leave                  on the freedom to provide services in cases involving the
         dentists practising in Italy still subject to a de facto             posting of employees can lie not only in the social
         residence obligation, and                                            protection of the employees posted but also in the
 ---pagebreak--- C 204/28               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       17.7.1999
    protection of the national construction industry and the             Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein
    reduction in national unemployment for the purpose of                Oikeus by order of that court of 27 April 1999 in the case
    preventing social tension, consistent with Community law?            of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and Pentti Juntunen
2. Does it amount to an unjustified restriction on the freedom
    to provide services under the EC Treaty if a domestic                                         (Case C-172/99)
    employer can pay less than the minimum wage laid down
    in a collective agreement declared to be generally binding                                    (1999/C 204/52)
    by concluding a collective agreement specific to one
    undertaking (and enjoying precedence), whereas this is
    — at least in fact — not possible for a non-German EC                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    employer in the case where he proposes to post workers               European Communities by an order of the Korkein Oikeus
    to the Federal Republic of Germany?                                  (Supreme Court), Finland, of 27 April 1999, which was
                                                                         received at the Court Registry on 7 May 1999, for a preliminary
                                                                         ruling in the case of Oy Liikenne Ab v Pekka Liskojärvi and
                                                                         Pentti Juntunen on the following question:
                                                                         Is a situation in which the operation of bus routes passes from
                                                                         one bus undertaking to another as a consequence of a
                                                                         tender procedure under Directive 92/50/EEC on public service
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Commission of the                    contracts (1) to be regarded as a transfer of a business for the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                     purposes of Article 1(1) of Directive 77/187/EEC (2)?
                          (Case C-168/99)
                                                                         (1) Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the
                                                                             coordination of procedures for the award of public service
                          (1999/C 204/51)                                    contracts (OJ L 209 of 24.7.1992, p. 1).
                                                                         (2) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May                    safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event of transfers of
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                          undertakings, businesses or arts of businesses (OJ L 61 of
                                                                             5.3.1977, p. 26).
represented by Juan Guerra Fernández, of its Legal Service,
acting as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service,
Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
1. Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force or
    communicate all the laws, regulations and administrative             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
    provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division
    96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and consolidating                  (Crown Office), by order of that court of 14 April 1999,
    Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing of                  in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State for
    veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and              Trade and Industry, Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertain-
    certain animal products and amending Directives                          ment, Cinematographic and Theatre Union (BECTU)
    90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (1), the Kingdom of Spain
    has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty; and
                                                                                (Case C-173/99)
2. Order the defendant to pay the costs.
                                                                                (1999/C 204/53)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                         European Communities by an order of the High Court of
The mandatory nature of the provisions ot the third paragraph            Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Crown
of Article 249 and the first paragraph of Article l0 of the EC           Office), of 14 April 1999, which was received at the Court
Treaty requires Member States to adopt the measures necessary            Registry on 10 May 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case
to transpose directives addressed to them into their domestic            of The Queen against Secretary of State for Trade and Industry,
law before the expiry of the period prescribed for doing so.             Ex parte: Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematographic and
That period, which is laid down in Article 4 of the directive,           Theatre Union (BECTU), on the following questions:
expired on 1 July 1997 without Spain having brought into
force the necessary provisions.
                                                                         1. Is the expression ‘in accordance with the conditions for
                                                                              entitlement to, and granting of, such leave laid down by
(1) OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1.                                                      national legislation and/or practice’ in Article 7 of Council
                                                                              Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning
                                                                              certain aspects of the organization of working time (OJ
                                                                              1993 L 307, p. 18: ‘the Working Time Directive’) to be


title: Case T-452/08: Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — DHL Aviation and DHL Hub Leipzig v Commission (State aid — Air freight — Warranties relating to the operation of DHL’s new European hub at Leipzig-Halle Airport — Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery)

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/28

         Judgment of the General Court of 7 October 2010 — DHL Aviation and DHL Hub Leipzig v Commission
   (Case T-452/08) (1)

   (State aid - Air freight - Warranties relating to the operation of DHL’s new European hub at Leipzig-Halle Airport - Decision declaring the aid incompatible with the common market and ordering its recovery)
   2010/C 317/49
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: DHL Aviation SA/NV (Zaventem, Belgium) and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH (Schkeuditz, Germany) (represented by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, and B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, of the Brussels Bar)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk and E. Righini, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for the partial annulment of Commission Decision 2008/948/EC of 23 July 2008 on measures by Germany to assist DHL and Leipzig-Halle Airport (OJ 2008 L 346, p. 1)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders DHL Aviation SA/NV and DHL Hub Leipzig GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 10.1.2009.


title: Case C-324/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the A Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2011 — Gábor Tóth v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, as successor to Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

text:
               24.9.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the A Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Hungary) lodged on 29 June 2011 — Gábor Tóth v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, as successor to Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály
   (Case C-324/11)
   2011/C 282/06
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   A Magyar Köztársaság Legfelsőbb Bírósága (Supreme Court of the Republic of Hungary)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Gábor Tóth

      Respondent: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Észak-magyarországi Regionális Adó Főigazgatósága, as successor to Adó- és Pénzügyi Ellenőrzési Hivatal Hatósági Főosztály Észak-magyarországi Kihelyezett Hatósági Osztály

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the principle of tax neutrality (Article 9 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax) infringed by a legal interpretation which prevents the addressee of an invoice from exercising his right to deduct where the operator who issued it has, prior to full performance of the contract or issue of the invoice, had his business operator’s licence withdrawn by the municipal authority?

               2.

               Can the fact that the individual operator who issued the invoice has not declared the workers whom he employs (who, as a result, work ‘in the black economy’), and the fact that, for that reason, the tax authority has found that the said operator ‘has no declared workers’, prevent the addressee of that invoice from exercising the right to deduct, having regard to the principle of tax neutrality?

               3.

               Can it be held that the addressee of the invoice is guilty of a lack of care when he does not verify either whether a legal relationship exists between the workers employed on a work site and the issuer of the invoice or whether the latter has fulfilled his tax-return obligations or any other obligations relating to those workers? Can it be held that such conduct constitutes an objective factor which demonstrates that the addressee of the invoice knew or ought to have known that he was participating in a transaction involving fraudulent evasion of VAT?

               4.

               Having regard to the principle of tax neutrality, can the national court take the above circumstances into consideration when its overall assessment leads it to the conclusion that the economic transaction did not take place between the persons specified on the invoice?

      (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: Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-322/97)

text:
C 331/ 14              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    1 . 11 . 97
1 . Is Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with
     meaning that the legal principles laid down by the                      the Seventeenth Commission Directive 94/32/EC (')
     Court of Justice in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and                of 29 June 1994 adapting to technical progress
     C-9/90 Francovich are part of EEA law, so that a State                  Annexes II, III, V, VI and VII of Council Directive 76/
     can be liable in damages towards an individual for not                  768/EEC (2 ) on the approximation of the laws of the
     properly implementing Council Directive 80/987/EEC                      Member States relating to cosmetic products, the
     of 20 October 1980, on the approximation of the laws                    Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
     of the Member States relating to the protection of                      under that Directive;
     employees in the event of the insolvency of the
     employer ( l ), during the period in which the State was
     only party to the EEA Agreement and had not acceded              2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
     to the EU ?
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative, is
     Article 6 of the EEA Agreement to be interpreted as
     meaning that Directive 80/987/EEC as well as the
     legal principles which the Court of Justice laid down            Pleas in law and main arguments correspond to those set
     in, inter alia, Joined Cases C-6/90 and C-9/90                   out in Case C-320/97 ( 3 ), the period prescribed in the
     Francovich prevail over domestic law if the State has            Directive expired on 30 June 1995 .
     not implemented the aforementioned directive in the
     proper way ?                                                     W OJ L 181 , 15 . 7. 1994, p . 31 .
                                                                      (2 ) OJ L 262, 27. 9 . 1976 , p . 169 .
                                                                      ( 3 ) See p. 13 of this Official Journal .
3 . If the answer to Question 1 is the negative, does a
     State 's accession to the EU mean that Directive 80/
     987/EEC as well as the legal principles which the
     Court of Justice laid down in Francovich prevail over
     domestic law even in regard to circumstances
     occurring during a period in which the State was only
     party to the EEA Agreement but before its accession              Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission
     to the EU if the State has not implemented the                   of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
     aforementioned directive in the proper way ?                                                      Belgium
                                                                                (Case C-323/97)
(M OJL283 , 28 . 10. 1980, p. 23 .
                                                                                ( 97/C 331 /27)
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
                                                                      before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the
                                                                      Commission of the European Communities, represented
Action brought on 17 September 1997 by the Commission                 by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of                    with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                               Belgium                                Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal
                         ( Case C-322/97)                             Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                           ( 97/C 331/26 )
                                                                      The Commission claims that the Court should:
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
before the Court of Justice on 17 September 1997 by the                1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within the
Commission of the European Communities, represented                          period prescribed, the laws, regulations and
by Pieter Van Nuffel, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent,                 administrative provisions necessary to comply with
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                   Council Directive 94/80/EC of 19 December 1994
Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, also of the Commission's Legal                      laying down detailed arrangements for the exercise of
Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                           the right to vote and to stand as a candidate in
                                                                             municipal elections by citizens of the Union residing in
                                                                             a Member State of which they are not nationals ( ! ),
The Commission claims that the Court should :                                the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
                                                                             obligations under that Directive;
 1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force, within
      the period prescribed, the laws, regulations and                 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Case C-91/15: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Assessment of validity — Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 — Common Customs Tariff — Tariff classification — Combined Nomenclature — Heading 8701 — Tractors — Subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 — Agricultural tractors (excluding pedestrian-controlled tractors) and forestry tractors, wheeled, new — Light four-wheeled all terrain vehicles designed to be used as tractors)

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/14

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane
   (Case C-91/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Assessment of validity - Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 - Common Customs Tariff - Tariff classification - Combined Nomenclature - Heading 8701 - Tractors - Subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 - Agricultural tractors (excluding pedestrian-controlled tractors) and forestry tractors, wheeled, new - Light four-wheeled all terrain vehicles designed to be used as tractors))
   (2016/C 419/16)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Gerechtshof Amsterdam

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Kawasaki Motors Europe NV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane

      Operative part of the judgment

   Paragraph 2 of the annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1051/2009 of 3 November 2009 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid in so far as it classifies the vehicle described in that paragraph under subheading 8107 90 90 of that Combined Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 948/2009 of 30 September 2009, and not under one of subheadings 8701 90 11 to 8701 90 39 of that Combined Nomenclature, which correspond to the engine power of that vehicle.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.


title: Case F-11/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — ZZ v EEAS

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/45

         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — ZZ v EEAS
   (Case F-11/14)
   2014/C 102/67
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the applicant’s contract in so far as he is placed in grade AD5 and for compensation for the damage allegedly suffered.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of 1 April 2013 in so far as it places the applicant in grade AD5;

               —

               If necessary, annul the decision of 28 October 2013 rejecting the applicant’s claim;

               —

               Order the regrading of the applicant’s post to a grade corresponding to the level of his responsibilities;

               —

               Order the defendant to bear all the consequences, in particular financial, of that regrading, retroactively since his entry into the service;

               —

               Compensate the applicant for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, assessed ex aequo et bono at EUR 5 000;

               —

               Order the EEAS to pay all the costs.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal, London, by order of that court of 27 May 1994, in the case of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of England, ex parte: Centro-Com srl (Case C-124/95)

text:
No C 174/4            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8 . 7 . 95
The applicant claims that the Court should :                                 1 . release of the funds is sought to pay a national of
                                                                                Member State B for goods exported by him from
1 . declare void the first indent of Article 1 ( 1 ) of Council                    Member State B to Serbia or Montenegro;
     Decision   94/ 800/EC        of 22     December     1994   in
     connection with Paragraph 1 of the Marrakesh Protocol                   2 . ( a ) the goods have been formally approved as
     and Article 4 ( 1 ) of the Agreement on Agriculture in                              intended strictly for medical purposes by the
     Annex 1A to the Agreement Establishing the World                                    United Nations Sanctions Committee pursuant
     Trade Organization ( WTO ), in so far as the Council has                            to UN Security Council Resolution 757;
     thereby confirmed the conclusion of the Community's                           ( b ) they have been exported pursuant to a prior
     Framework Agreement on Bananas with Costa Rica,                                     export authorization issued by the competent
     Colombia , Nicaragua and Venezuela ;                                                authorities of Member State B pursuant to
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 ;
2 . order the Council to pay the costs .
                                                                             3 . the national measures permit the release of funds in
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                                payment for the export of such goods from Member
                                                                                State A itself where the export authorization
                                                                                referred to at paragraph 2 ( b ) has been issued by the
Infringement of Community law of a higher order : The                              competent authorities of Member State A; and
Framework Agreement approved by the Council infringes
the fundamental rights of market operators in Groups A and                   4 . Member State A has decided that the adoption of
C ( within the meaning of Council Regulation ( EEC )                               such national measures is necessary or expedient for
No 404/93 ) to the freedom to pursue an occupation, to                             enabling UN Security Council Resolution 757 to be
equal treatment and to property ( in the business established                      effectively applied ?
and carried on by them ). The Framework Agreement leads
to the purchase of third-country bananas being made more                2 . Is the answer to question 1 affected by the provisions of
difficult than hitherto under Regulation ( EEC ) No 404/93 ,                 Article 234 of the EC Treaty ?
because a part of the tariff quota may henceforth be derived
only from certain countries, and those countries are                    (') OJ No L 151 , 3 . 6 . 1992 , p . 4 .
additionally authorized to issue export licences the
production of which is a precondition for the issuing of
import licences by the Community to operators of Groups A
and C. There are no obvious technical reasons to justify the
consequent further worsening in the position of traditional             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal in
importers of third-country bananas .                                    Northern Ireland , by order of that court of 27 March 1995 ,
                                                                        in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                                                                                Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food
                                                                                ( Case C-127/95 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 174/08 )
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
                                                                        European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal
 London, by order of that court of 27 May 1994 , in the case            in Northern Ireland of 27 March 1995 , which was received
 of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                       at the Court Registry on 18 April 1995 , for a preliminary
              England , ex parte: Centro-Com srl                        ruling in the case of Norbrook Laboratories Ltd against the
                         ( Case C-124/95 )                              Ministry of Agriculture , Fisheries and Food , on the
                            ( 95/C 174/07 )                              following questions :
                                                                         1 . Are Council Directive 81 /851 /EEC of 28 September
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       1981 on the approximation of the laws of the Member
 European Communities by an order of the Court of Appeal,                     States relating to veterinary medicinal products (') and
 London, of 27 May 1994, which was received at the Court                      Council Directive 8 1/852/EEC of 28 September 1981 on
 Registry on 11 April 1995 , for a preliminary ruling in the                  the approximation of the laws of the Member States
 case of The Queen against HM Treasury and the Bank of                        relating to analytical , pharmaco-toxicological and
 England, ex parte -. Centro-Com srl , on the following                       clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing
 questions :                                                                  of veterinary medicinal products ( 2 ) ( and in particular
                                                                              Articles 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 29 to 31 , 35 , 40 and 41 of Directive
 1 . Is it compatible with the common commercial policy of                    81 / 851 /EEC and Part 1 of the Annex to Directive
      the Community and , in particular, Article 1 1 3 of the EC              8 1 /852/EEC in the form in which they existed prior to
      Treaty and Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1432/92 of                     any amendment ) to be interpeted as permitting the
      1 June 1992 prohibiting trade between the European                      competent        authority      of    a    Member     State ,    in
      Economic Community and the Republics of Serbia and                      circumstances such as those hereinbefore described :
      Montenegro (') for Member State A to adopt national
      measures which prohibit the release of funds located in                 ( a ) to require an applicant for a marketing
      Member State A but belonging to a person in Serbia or                           authorization in respect of a veterinary medicinal
      Montenegro in circumstances where :                                             product ('the Product') to identify or to arrange to


title: Case T-325/17: Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/53

         Action brought on 29 May 2017 — Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij v Commission
   (Case T-325/17)
   (2017/C 239/67)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV (Amstelveen, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Smeets, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Commission Decision C(2017) 1742 final of 17 March 2017 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 of the EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport (Case AT.39258 — Airfreight) in whole for a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment in accordance with its first plea; for lack of jurisdiction over air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports within the EEA in accordance with its second plea (in primary order); for a violation of Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 101 TFEU, Article 53 EEA Agreement and Article 8 of the Agreement between the European Community and the Swiss Confederation on Air Transport and the Fining Guidelines (1) in accordance with its fourth plea (in primary order); or

               —

               annul Articles 1(2)(d) and 1(3)(d) of the contested decision, in so far as it is found in these provisions that the applicant committed an infringement in relation to air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports within the EEA, in accordance with its second plea (in subsidiary order); and

               —

               annul Article 1 and Article 1(1)(d), 1(2)(d), 1(3)(d) and 1(4)(d) of the contested decision, in so far as it is found there that the single and continuous infringement included the non-commissioning of surcharges, in accordance with its third plea; and

               —

               in alternative order, if the Court does not annul the contested decision in whole in accordance with its first, second and fourth plea, exercise its full discretion to reduce the fine imposed on the applicant in Article 3(c) and 3(d) of the contested decision in accordance with its first, second, third and fourth plea; and finally,

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings if the Court annuls the contested decision in whole or in part, or reduces the fine.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging a violation of the prohibition of arbitrariness and the principle of equal treatment.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the contested decision violates the prohibition of arbitrariness by excluding undertakings from the operative part of the contested decision which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision violates the principle of equal treatment by sanctioning the applicant for an infringement and imposing a fine on the applicant, and exposing it to civil liability, while undertakings are excluded from the operative part which, according to its statement of reasons, have taken part in the same behaviour as the addressees of the contested decision.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a lack of jurisdiction over air cargo transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the contested decision wrongly relies on the assumption that the single and continuous infringement concerning air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA was implemented in the EEA.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the contested decision wrongly relies on the assumption that the single and continuous infringement concerning air transport from airports outside the EEA to airports in the EEA had a substantial, immediate and foreseeable effect on competition in the EEA.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a failure to state reasons and manifest error of assessment in finding that the non-commissioning of surcharges constitutes a separate element of the infringement.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the two assumptions on which the contested decision relies to qualify non-commissioning of surcharges as a separate element of the infringement, are contradictory in light of the economic and regulatory context of the industry concerned.

                           —

                           The applicant further puts forward that the non-commissioning of surcharges is indistinguishable from the practices regarding the fuel surcharge and the security surcharge, and does not constitute a separate element of the infringement.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the fine is in violation of the principle of the legality and the proportionality of fines under Article 49 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, Article 101 TFUE and the Fining Guidelines, and that it is manifestly erroneous.

                           —

                           The applicant puts forward that the value of KLM’s Cargo’s sales to which the infringement relates is the value of the fuel and the security surcharge and not KLM Cargo’s full turnover.

                           —

                           The value of KLM Cargo’s sales on which the basic amount of the fine has been based should not include KLM Cargo’s sales outside the EEA.

                           —

                           The 15 % reduction of the fine on account of governmental intervention does not correspond with the degree of governmental intervention during the period of infringement.

      (1)  Guidelines on the method of setting fines imposed pursuant to Article 23(2)(a) of Regulation No 1/2003 (OJ C 210, p. 2).


title: Removal from the register of C-332/95

text:
28 . 6 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 199/ 19
          Removal from the register of C-187/95 (*)                             Removal from the register of C-363/95 0 )
                           ( 97/C 199/39                                                           ( 97/C 199/43 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-187/95 ( Reference for a                   from the register of Case C-363/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Roma,     Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli       ( Rome District
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division)): criminal proceedings            Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
against Angelo Deodati and Aldo Luchini .                              against Giuseppe Tancredi .
O OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 16 , 20 . 1 . 1996 .
          Removal from the register of C-331/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/40 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 77/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/44 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-331 /95 ( Reference for a                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   from the register of Case C-377/95 ( Reference for a
Roma , Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                    preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
against Giuseppe Piccolo.                                              Magistrates ' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
                                                                       against Tersilio Onorati .
H OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
                                                                       H OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-332/95 (')
                           ( 97/C 199/41 )                                      Removal from the register of C-3 78/95 (')
                                                                                ( 97/C 199/45 )
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-332/95 ( Reference for a                   By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Roma,       Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli        ( Rome District        from the register of Case C-378/95 ( Reference for a
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di
against Mario Corbo and Others .                                       Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District
                                                                       Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                      against Palma Mariulli .
                                                                        ') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
           Removal from the register of C-342/95 H
                            ( 97/C 199/42 )
                                                                                Removal from the register of C-l/96 SA (')
By order of 7 March 1997, the President of the Court of                                             ( 97/C 199/46 )
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-342/95 ( Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di                   By order of 24 April 1997 the President of the Court of
Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli ( Rome District                     Justice of the European Communities has ordered the
Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division )): criminal proceedings           removal from the register of Case C-l /96 SA: SA Must
against Miranda Viola .                                                Interim v. Commission of the European Communities.
(') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .                                        ') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .