title: Case C-314/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Sanoma Media Finland Oy — Nelonen Media v Viestintävirasto (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2010/13/EU — Article 19(1) — Separation of television advertising and programmes — Split screen — Article 23(1) and (2) — Limit of 20 % per clock hour on the broadcasting time for television advertising spots — Sponsorship announcements — Other references to a sponsor — ‘Black seconds’)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/8

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Korkein hallinto-oikeus — Finland) — Sanoma Media Finland Oy — Nelonen Media v Viestintävirasto
   (Case C-314/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2010/13/EU - Article 19(1) - Separation of television advertising and programmes - Split screen - Article 23(1) and (2) - Limit of 20 % per clock hour on the broadcasting time for television advertising spots - Sponsorship announcements - Other references to a sponsor - ‘Black seconds’))
   (2016/C 145/08)
   Language of the case: Finnish

      Referring court

   Korkein hallinto-oikeus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Sanoma Media Finland Oy–Nelonen Media

      Respondent: Viestintävirasto

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 19(1) of Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive) must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which a split screen that shows the closing credits of a television programme in one column and a list presenting the supplier’s upcoming programmes in the other, in order to separate the programme which is ending from the television advertising break that follows it, does not necessarily have to be combined with, or followed by, an acoustic or optical signal, provided that such a means of separation meets, in itself, the requirements set out in the first sentence of Article 19(1), a matter which is for the referring court to establish.

               2.

               Article 23(2) of Directive 2010/13 must be interpreted as meaning that sponsorship signs shown in programmes other than the sponsored programme, such as those at issue in the main proceedings, must be included in the maximum time for the broadcasting of advertising per clock hour, set in Article 23(1) of that directive.

               3.

               Article 23(1) of Directive 2010/13 must be interpreted, where a Member State has not made use of the power to lay down a stricter rule than that established by that article, as not only not precluding ‘black seconds’ which are inserted between the various spots of a television advertising break or between that break and the television programme which follows it from being included in the maximum time for the broadcasting of television advertising per clock hour which that article sets at 20 %, but also as requiring their inclusion.

      (1)  OJ C 292, 1.9.2014.


title: Case T-840/14: Action brought on 23 December 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (Sky BONUS)

text:
               23.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 65/50

         Action brought on 23 December 2014 — International Gaming Projects v OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting Group (Sky BONUS)
   (Case T-840/14)
   (2015/C 065/67)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: International Gaming Projects Ltd (Valletta, Malta) (represented by: M. Garayalde Niño, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Sky BONUS’ — Application for registration No 10 734 549

      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 October 2014 in Case R 2040/2013-4

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Partially annul the contested decision and grant registration of CTM application ‘Sky BONUS’;

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

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


title: Case C-695/15 PPU: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure — Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 — Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection — Article 3(3) — Right of Member States to send an applicant to a safe third country — Article 18 — Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back — Directive 2013/32/EU — Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection — Examination of an application for international protection)

text:
               2.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 156/21

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 17 March 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság — Hungary) — Shiraz Baig Mirza v Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal
   (Case C-695/15 PPU) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure - Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 - Criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection - Article 3(3) - Right of Member States to send an applicant to a safe third country - Article 18 - Obligations of the Member State responsible for examining the application in the event that the applicant is taken back - Directive 2013/32/EU - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Examination of an application for international protection))
   (2016/C 156/29)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Debreceni Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi Bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Shiraz Baig Mirza

      Defendant: Bevándorlási és Állampolgársági Hivatal

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) No 604/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 establishing the criteria and mechanisms for determining the Member State responsible for examining an application for international protection lodged in one of the Member States by a third-country national or a stateless person must be interpreted as meaning that the right to send an applicant for international protection to a safe third country may also be exercised by a Member State after that Member State has accepted that it is responsible, pursuant to that regulation and within the context of the take-back procedure, for examining an application for international protection submitted by an applicant who left that Member State before a decision on the substance of his first application for international protection had been taken.

               2.

               Article 3(3) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not precluding the sending of an applicant for international protection to a safe third country when the Member State carrying out the transfer of that applicant to the Member State responsible has not been informed, during the take-back procedure, either of the rules of the latter Member State relating to the sending of applicants to safe third countries or of the relevant practice of its competent authorities.

               3.

               Article 18(2) of Regulation No 604/2013 must be interpreted as not requiring that, in the event that an applicant for international protection is taken back, the procedure for examining that applicant’s application be resumed at the stage at which it was discontinued.

      (1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.


title: Case F-141/14: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Guittet v Commission (Civil service — Former official — Social security — Payment of medical expenses — Management of the medical file by the Commission — Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials — Non-contractual liability of the European Union)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/95

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 15 December 2015 — Guittet v Commission
   (Case F-141/14) (1)

   ((Civil service - Former official - Social security - Payment of medical expenses - Management of the medical file by the Commission - Principle of sound administration and the duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Non-contractual liability of the European Union))
   (2016/C 048/108)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christian Guittet (Cannes, France) (represented by: L. Levi and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially J. Currall and T. S. Bohr, acting as Agents, and C. Mélotte, lawyer, and subsequently by T.S. Bohr, acting as Agent, and C. Mélotte, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision rejecting the claim for damages due to an administrative fault committed by the Commission, responsible for the medical file of the applicant, who was the victim of a serious accident, and the claim for damages for the material and non-material damage allegedly suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Declares that Mr Guittet shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 46.


title: Case C-315/99 P: Appeal brought on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa Srl against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri Europa Srl and Court of Auditors of the European Communities

text:
20.11.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 333/15
at the Court Registry on 13 August 1999, for a preliminary              2. breach of Community law regarding the principle that
ruling in the criminal proceedings against Armando Caterino                 proceedings should be inter partes and failure to state
on the following question:                                                  sufficient reasons;
‘For the purposes of Community law, is the term “transport              3. failure to adjudicate on a crucial point in the dispute;
[of] waste on a professional basis” contained in Article 12 of          4. breach of Community law regarding defamation and
Directive 91/156/EEC(1) equivalent to “transport of waste                   failure to state sufficient reasons;
produced by others”, regard also being had to the notion
of “producer” of waste under Article 1 of that directive?               5. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged ‘confusion of
Consequently, is Article 1(19) of Law No 426/1998, which                    interests’ and failure to state sufficient reasons or to define
implements that directive, in itself in accordance or at variance           the legal situation correctly;
with the above Community legislation properly construed?’
                                                                        6. distortion of the facts relating to the alleged reluctance of
                                                                            Ismeri’s representative to resign from the management
 (1) Council Directive of 18 March 1991 amending Directi-
     ve 75/442/EEC on waste, OJ L 78 of 26 March 1991, p. 32.               board of the ARTM (agency for transMediterranean net-
                                                                            works) and failure to state sufficient reasons.
Appeal brought on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa Srl                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                   finanzhof (Federal Finance Court) by order of that court
Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     of 15 July 1999 in the case of Finanzamt Burgdorf v
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                                           Hans-Georg Fischer
Europa Srl and Court of Auditors of the European
                            Communities                                                          (Case C-322/99)
                         (Case C-315/99 P)                                                       (1999/C 333/32)
                          (1999/C 333/31)                               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by a judgment of the Bundesfinanzhof
                                                                        of 15 July 1999, which was received at the Court Registry on
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by             27 August 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 Finanzamt Burgdorf v Hans-Georg Fischer on the following
European Communities in Case T-277/97 between Ismeri                    question of interpretation of Directive 77/388/EEC (1):
Europa Srl and the Court of Auditors of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the              (1) Do subsequent (deductible) bodywork repairs and respray-
European Communities on 24 August 1999 by Ismeri Europa                     ing work carried out on a car (on the purchase of which
Srl, whose registered office is in Rome, represented by Sergio              VAT was not deductible) mean, on transfer from the
Ristuccia and Gian Luigi Tosato, of the Rome Bar.                           business,
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                 (a) that the car must be viewed as goods on which
                                                                                VAT was partly deductible under Article 5(6) of the
— set aside the judgment delivered on 15 June 1999 by the                        Directive, or
     Court of First Instance in Case T-277/97;
                                                                            (b) that the subsequent expenditure is to be viewed as a
— uphold the forms of order sought by Ismeri at first                            component, on which VAT was deductible, of the
     instance, which are to be deemed to have been reapplied                     goods?
     for in their entirety;
                                                                        (2) If Question (1) is answered in the affirmative, what are the
— order the Court of Auditors to pay the costs incurred both                business goods disposed of which are to be taxed under
     at first instance and in these appeal proceedings.                     Article 5(6) of the Directive:
                                                                            (a) the car including the work carried out on it (bodywork
Pleas and main arguments                                                         repairs and respraying) or
                                                                            (b) only the work carried out (bodywork repairs and
Pursuant to Article 225 of the EC Treaty and Article 49 of the                   respraying)?
EC Statute of the Court of Justice, Ismeri appeals against the
above judgment on the following grounds:                                (3) If Question (2) is answered in the affirmative: Is the basis
                                                                            of assessment under Article 11A(1)(b) of the Directive the
1. flaws in the procedure before the Court of Instance (failure             purchase price of the car (or an equivalent car) together
     to rule on the application for a hearing of oral evidence              with the cost of repairs each determined as at the time of
     and an inadequate preparatory inquiry) to the detriment of             disposal, or only the price of the (tax deductible) repairs
     the applicant;                                                         carried out?


title: Case C-499/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Republic of Poland) — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie (Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or repression — Condition requiring residence in national territory — Article 18(1) EC)

text:
               5.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/7

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 May 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie, Republic of Poland) — Halina Nerkowska v Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie
   (Case C-499/06) (1)

   (Disability pension granted to civilian victims of war or repression - Condition requiring residence in national territory - Article 18(1) EC)
   (2008/C 171/12)
   Language of the case: Polish
   Referring court
   Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Halina Nerkowska

      Defendant: Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych Oddział w Koszalinie
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Sąd Okręgowy w Koszalinie — Interpretation of Article 18 EC — Compatibility of a national provision under which payment of a benefit granted to victims of war and of its consequences is subject to a requirement of residence in national territory
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 18(1) EC is to be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State under which it refuses, generally and in all circumstances, to pay to its nationals a benefit granted to civilian victims of war or repression solely because they are not resident in the territory of that State throughout the period of payment of the benefit, but in the territory of another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 20, 27.1.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2001 in Case T-2/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Council of the European Union (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article 307 EC) — Action for damages)

text:
5.1.2002               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 3/21
                                                        COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               5.    Orders the applicant in Case T-204/98 to pay its own costs
                                                                               and those incurred by the Commission in that case, including
                                                                               those relating to the proceedings for interim relief;
                          of 12 July 2001
                                                                         6.    Orders the applicant in Case T-207/98 to pay its own costs
in Joined Cases T-202/98, T-204/98 and T-207/98: Tate &                        and those incurred by the Commission in that case.
Lyle plc and Others v Commission of the European
                         Communities (1)
                                                                         (1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
(Competition — Sugar market — Infringement of Article 85
        of the EC Treaty (now Article 81 EC) — Fines)
                           (2002/C 3/32)
                   (Language of the case: English)                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 12 July 2001
In Joined Cases T-202/98: Tate & Lyle plc, represented by
R. Fowler QC and A. L. Morris, solicitors, with an address               in Case T-2/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG v Council of the
for service in Luxembourg, T-204/98: British Sugar plc,                                          European Union (1)
represented by T. Sharpe QC and D. Jowell, barristers, and
L.R. Lindsay and A. Nourry, solicitors, with an address for
                                                                         (Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
service in Luxembourg, Case T-207/98: Napier Brown & Co.
                                                                         — Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on
Ltd, represented by D. Guy, solicitor, and S. Sheppard,
                                                                         WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC
barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against
                                                                         Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of
Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
                                                                                Article 307 EC) — Action for damages)
B. Doherty and K. Wiedner) — application for annulment of
Commission Decision 1999/210/EC of 14 October 1998
relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 85 of the EC                                            (2002/C 3/33)
    Treaty                        (Case                      IV/
F-3/33.708 — British Sugar plc, Case IV/F-3/33.709 — Tate
& Lyle plc, Case IV/F-3/33.710 — Napier Brown & Company                                     (Language of the case: German)
Ltd, Case IV/F-3/33.711 — James Budgett Sugars Ltd) (OJ
1999 L 76, p. 1) — the Court of First Instance (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and
R.M. Moura Ramos, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,           In Case T-2/99: T. Port GmbH & Co. KG, established in
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in              Hamburg (Germany), represented by G. Meier, lawyer, against
which it:                                                                the Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and
                                                                         J.-P. Hix) supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-
                                                                         Bellanger, C. Vasak, S. Seam and F. Million) and by the
1.    Annuls Article 3 of Commission Decision 1999/210/EC of             Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K.-D. Bor-
      14 October 1998 relating to a proceeding pursuant to               chardt) — application for compensation for the loss which the
      Article 85 of the EC Treaty (Case IV/F-3/33.708 — British          applicant has suffered as a result of the Council introducing,
      Sugar plc, Case IV/F-3/33.709 — Tate & Lyle plc, Case IV/          under Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February
      F-3/33.710 — Napier Brown & Company Ltd, Case IV/                  1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas
      F-3/33.711 — James Budgett Sugars Ltd) in so far as it             (OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), provisions which are alleged to conflict
      concerns the applicant in Case T-202/98;                           with Article I.1 and Article XIII of the General Agreement on
                                                                         Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the Court of First Instance
2.    Fixes the amount of the fine imposed on the applicant in Case      (Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
      T-202/98 by Article 3 of Decision 1999/210 at 5.6 million          Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
      euros;                                                             for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
                                                                         which it:
3.    Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the
      applicant in Case T-202/98;                                        1.    Dismisses the action;
4.    Dismisses the applications in Cases T-204/98 and T-207/98;         2.    Orders the applicant to pay the costs;
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/22                  EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           5.1.2002
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       own costs.
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.                                                                           of 5 June 2001
                                                                          in Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH v
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (ECSC Treaty — State aid — Investment aid — Operating
                                                                          aid — Scope of the ECSC Treaty — Principle of protection
                          of 12 July 2001                                                     of legitimate expectations)
in Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH v Council of the
                        European Union (1)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/35)
(Bananas — Imports from ACP States and third countries
— Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 — Possibility of relying on
WTO rules — First paragraph of Article 234 of the EC                                         (Language of the case: German)
Treaty (now, after amendment, first paragraph of Article
                  307 EC) — Action for damages)
                           (2002/C 3/34)
                    (Language of the case: German)                        In Case T-6/99: ESF Elbe-Stahlwerke Feralpi GmbH, established
                                                                          in Riesa, Germany, represented by W.M. Kühne and S. Bauer,
                                                                          avocats, with an address for service in Luxembourg, supported
                                                                          by Federal Republic of Germany (Agents: W.-D. Plessing and
In Case T-3/99: Banatrading GmbH, established in Hamburg                  C.-D. Quassowski) and by the Freistaat Sachsen, represented
(Germany), represented by G. Meier, lawyer, against the                   by J. Sedemund and T. Lübbig, avocats, with an address for
Council of the European Union (Agents: S. Marquardt and                   service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European
J.P. Hix) supported by the French Republic (Agents: K. Rispal-            Communities (Agents: D. Triantafyllou and P. Nemitz) —
Bellanger, C. Vasak, S. Seam and F. Million) and by the                   application for annulment of Commission Decision
Commission of the European Communities (Agent: K.-D. Bor-                 1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid granted
chardt) — application for compensation for the loss which the             by Germany to ESF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa, Saxony
applicant has suffered as a result of the Council introducing,            (OJ 1999 L 220, p. 28) — the Court of First Instance (Third
under Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 of 13 February                   Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of J. Azizi,
1993 on the common organisation of the market in bananas                  President, and P. Mengozzi, K. Lenaerts, R.M. Moura Ramos
(OJ 1993 L 47, p. 1), provisions which are alleged to conflict            and M. Jaeger, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator, for the
with Article I.1 and Article XIII of the General Agreement on             Registrar, has delivered a judgment on 5 June 2001 in which
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — the Court of First Instance                    it:
(Fifth Chamber), composed of P. Lindh, President, R. Garcı́a-
Valdecasas and J.D. Cooke, Judges; G. Herzig, Administrator,
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 July 2001, in
which it:                                                                 1.    Annuls the first paragraph of Article 1 of Commission Decision
                                                                                1999/580/ECSC of 11 November 1998 concerning aid
                                                                                granted by Germany to EF Elbestahlwerk Feralpi GmbH, Riesa,
1.     Dismisses the action;
                                                                                Saxony, in so far as the part of the investment grant granted to
                                                                                the applicant in 1995 relating to investments in its cold wire
2.     Orders the applicant to pay the costs;                                   rod drawing plant is declared incompatible with Decision
                                                                                No 2496/96/ESC and the common market for coal and steel;
3.     Orders the Commission and the French Republic to bear their
       own costs.
                                                                          2.    Annuls the second paragraph of Article 1 of Decision
                                                                                1999/580, in so far as it states that the aid element of the
( 1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                guarantees covering the operating loans of DEM 7.2 million
                                                                                and DEM 4.8 million granted at the end of 1994 was not
                                                                                authorised;


title: Case C-319/99: Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
16.10.1999             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 299/19
2. Infringement of Directive 76/769/EEC and, in particular,            The applicant claims that the Court should:
     of Directive 91/338/EEC: in that it provides, in relation to
     Austria and Sweden, for the power to prohibit the use of
     cadmium otherwise than as provided for in Annex I to              1. Declare that, by failing to adopt within the specified
     Directive 91/338/EEC, Directive 1999/51/EC is based on                 period the measures necessary to comply with Directive
     an incorrect interpretation of Directive 76/769/EEC, as                96/43/EC (1) the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to
     adapted by Directive 91/388/EEC. Directive 76/769/EEC is               fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and that directive;
     exclusively concerned with the uses to which cadmium
     may be put as expressly provided for in Annex I thereto.          2. Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
     National restrictions on the uses to which cadmium may
     be put which are not provided for in Annex I to Directive
     76/769/EEC are permitted in so far as those restrictions
     are compatible with the EC Treaty, in particular Articles 28      Pleas in law and main arguments
     to 30 thereof.
3. Breach of the principle of legal certainty: Directive               In view of the binding nature of the provisions in Article 249
     1999/51/EC, taken as a whole refers only to the rules             EC, third paragraph, and Article 10 EC, first paragraph,
     applying in Austria and Sweden. Since the Austrian and            Member States are required to implement in their national law
     Swedish rules provide for restrictions on uses of cadmium         a directive addressed to them in such a way that it becomes
     which are not covered by Directive 76/769/EEC, there is a         fully effective when the period set for its implementation
     lack of clarity as to the scope of application of Directive       expires. That period, laid down in Article 4(1) and (2) of the
     76/769/EEC.                                                       Directive, expired on 1 July 1996/1 July 1997, without all
                                                                       the Federal Länder having hitherto adopted the necessary
4. Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of                 provisions.
     reasons: first of all, no reasons are given for the Com-
     mission’s view that the special position of Austria and
     Sweden with regard to the use of cadmium involves an
                                                                       (1) OJ 1996 L 162 of 1.7.1996, p. 1.
     adaptation to technical progress within the meaning of
     Article 2a of Directive 76/769/EEC. Nor are any reasons
     given as to which uses of cadmium are covered by the
     contested derogation. Moreover, no reasons are given as
     to why point 3 in the Annex to Directive 1999/51/EC
     purports to be based on technical progress and the
     existence of less dangerous substitutes. In addition, there
     should have been a statement of the reasons for which the
     Commission has expressly permitted Austria and Sweden,
     but not other Member States such as the Netherlands, to
     apply more rigorous restrictions.                                 Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission
                                                                       of the European Communities against the French Republic
(1) OJ 1999 L 142, p. 22.
(2) OJ 1976 L 262, p. 201.                                                                        (Case C-319/99)
(3) OJ 1991 L 186, p. 59.
                                                                                (1999/C 299/23)
                                                                       An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August
                                                                       1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                       represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
Action brought on 24 August 1999 by the Commission                     Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                 of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                          lic of Germany
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-316/99)
                                                                       (1) declare that, by failing to communicate within the pre-
                         (1999/C 299/22)                                    scribed time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                            measures necessary in order to comply with Council
                                                                            Directive 95/47/EC of 24 October 1995 on the use of
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                       standards for the transmission of television signals (1),
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                alternatively by failing to adopt the measures necessary in
ties on 24 August 1999 by the Commission of the European                    order to comply therewith, the French Republic has failed
Communities, represented by Klaus-Dieter Borchardt, of its                  to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, also of
its Legal Service, Wagner Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                     (2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 299/20                 EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   16.10.1999
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in               The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down             Case C-316/99 (2); the time-limit for transposition laid down
by Article 8 of the directive expired on 23 August 1996 but               by Article 17 of the directive expired on 30 June 1998 but
France has not adopted the necessary measures.                            France has not adopted the necessary measures.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 59 of 27.2.1998, p. 1.
(1) Directive 95/47/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council      (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
    of 24 October 1995 on the use of standards for the transmission
    of television signals (OJ L 281 of 23.11.1995, p. 51).
(2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.
                                                                          Action brought on 7 September 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                                (Case C-332/99)
Action brought on 26 August 1999 by the Commission                                                 (1999/C 299/25)
of the European Communities against the French Republic
                                                                          An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                          Court of Justice of the European Communities on 7 September
                           (Case C-320/99)                                1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as
                           (1999/C 299/24)                                Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office
                                                                          of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
An action against the French Republic was brought before the              The Commission claims that the Court should,
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 26 August
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       1. Declare that, by not communicating or by not adopting
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office                 administrative provisions necessary for it to comply with
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                         Article 1 points 6, 7, 8, 9 and 14 of Council Directive
                                                                               93/35/EEC of 14 June 1993 amending for the sixth time
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of the laws of
                                                                               the Member States relating to cosmetic products (1), the
(1) declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed                    French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
     time-limit the laws, regulations and administrative                       the Treaty.
     measures necessary in order to comply with Directive                 2. Order the French Republic to pay the costs.
     97/68/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council
     of 16 December 1997 on the approximation of the laws
     of the Member States relating to measures against the                Pleas in law and main arguments
     emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants from
     internal combustion engines to be installed in non-road              The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
     mobile machinery (1), alternatively by failing in any event          Case C-316/99 (2). The time-limit for implementation laid
     to communicate those measures to the Commission, the                 down by Article 3 of Directive 93/35/EEC expired on 11 June
     French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under           1995.
     that directive;
                                                                          (1) OJ L 151 of 23 June 1993, p. 32.
(2) order the French Republic to pay the costs.                           (2) See page 19 of this Official Journal.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of 24 September 1997 in the case of Wilfried Ernst Joachim Monsees against the Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat für Kärnten, Additional Party: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft und Verkehr (Case C-350/97)

text:
C 370/2                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        6 . 12 . 97
Contentions and main arguments adduced in support:                       undertaking without conducting a tendering
                                                                         procedure . It also uses it in order to correct what it
                                                                         regards as inadequacies in the Community legislation,
The    contested     decision  is based  on   erroneous    and           as the Conciliation Body recognizes with regard to
subjective considerations . The Kingdom of Spain believes                dried feedingstuffs .
that it has put forward sufficient information and
arguments to show that the contested decision infringed at
least the following principles of Community law :                        Those corrections, which are in fact in the nature of
                                                                         penalties, are not based on any legislative provision.
— The principle of the right to a hearing : this principle is
    infringed by all the corrections at issue in the
    application .                                                        The Conciliation Body regards the correction of 10%
                                                                          in respect of production aid as fair, but in so doing
                                                                         relies on the same argument as the Commission : the
    Formally, that principle was observed in that the                     lack of computer records. It is not permissible to
    Member State was given an opportunity to state its                   withhold the refund of aid paid out in advance merely
    views on the matters raised by the Commission staff.                  because certain computer records have not been
    But in practice no notice was ever taken of the                       finalized : there must be a duly established and serious
    explanations given. That is immediately clear from the                lack   of checks        which    has  caused   harm    to   the
    documents sent to the Commission by the Spanish                       Community budget.
    authorities, setting out facts and arguments
    comprehensively, and the replies to them, which do no
    more than stress the same points, without                        — In the alternative, the applicant alleges breach of the
    contradicting or refuting the arguments put forward.                  principle of proportionality: if the submissions of the
    Such conduct is tantamount to denying the right of                    Spanish authorities had been properly considered, the
    defence and involves breach of the right to a hearing:               corrections would have been much lower than those
    the explanations put forward by Spain in its defence                  actually imposed. The applicant considers that it put
    have been repeatedly ignored .                                        forward adequate data and arguments to demonstrate
                                                                          to the Court that there is no lack of controls in Spain,
                                                                          at least not to the extent alleged by the Commission.
— Lack of any evidence of the faults imputed to the
    Member State : this basic requirement was also
    infringed in all cases, particularly in relation to              (') OJ L 245 , 9 . 9 . 1997, p . 20 .
    consumption aid . The Commission based its
    corrections either on appearances or suspicions or else
    on data refuted or corrected by the Spanish
    authorities .
— The principle of sound administration : infringed in all
    cases through failure to take account of or sufficiently         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the
    assess the explanations repeatedly given by the Spanish          Verwaltungsgerichtshof, Vienna, by order of that court of
    authorities — particularly as regards the overall                24 September 1997 in the case of Wilfried Ernst Joachim
    correction of 2 % for consumption aid . That                     Monsees against the Unabhangiger Verwaltungssenat fiir
    correction was applied on the basis of visits and                Karnten,        Additional         Party:    Bundesminister       fiir
                                                                                Wissenschaft und Verkehr
     inspections in years prior to 1993 , and in relation to
     alleged faults on the part of an undertaking which did                                     ( Case C-3 50/97)
     not receive aid in that year.
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/03 )
— The principle nulla poena sine lege: this principle was
     infringed in particular in relation to aid for oil
     production and aid for the production of dried                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     feedingstuffs .                                                 European          Communities           by     order    of        the
                                                                     Verwaltungsgerichtshof ( Administrative Court ), Vienna of
                                                                     24 September 1997, received at the Court Registry on
     A financial correction may only be imposed if it is             13 October 1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
     found that controls are not being carried out in                Wilfried Ernst Joachim Monsees against the Unabhangiger
     accordance with the Community provisions and only               Verwaltungssenat fiir Karnten ( Independent Administrative
     if the inadequacies detected are serious and give               Board for Carinthia ), Additional Party : Bundesminister fiir
     reasonable grounds for concluding that the                      Wissenschaft und Verkehr ( Federal Minister for Science
     Community budget has been seriously affected . The              and Transport ), on the following question:
     Commission        uses   the  instrument    of   financial
     correction in order to penalize a Member State for not
     keeping a computer record up to date or for awarding            are Articles 30 to 36 of the EC Treaty (provisions on the
     a contract regarding records of oil production to an            freedom of movement of goods ) and the other provisions
 ---pagebreak--- 6 . 12 . 97              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 370/3
of applicable Community law to be interpreted as                        Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
preventing a Member State from restricting the transport                Miinchen by order of that court of 17 September 1997 in
of animals for slaughter in that animals may be                         the case of Molkereigenossenschaft Wiedergeltingen eG v.
transported for slaughter only as far as the nearest suitable                                   Hauptzollamt Lindau
abattoir in that State, and may be transported for                                                (Case C-356/97)
slaughter in any event only if the provisions of law
regarding motor vehicles and traffic regulation are                                                 ( 97/C 370/05 )
observed and a total journey time of six hours and a
distance of 130 kilometres are not exceeded, whereby, in                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
calculating the distance, account is taken of only half of              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht
the kilometres actually travelled on a motorway ?                       Miinchen ( Finance Court, Munich ) of 17 September 1997,
                                                                        received at the Court Registry on 16 October 1997, for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the case of Molkereigenossenschaft
                                                                        Wiedergeltingen eG v. Hauptzollamt ( Principal Customs
                                                                        Office ) Lindau on the following question :
                                                                        is the second subparagraph of Article 3 ( 2 ) of Commission
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster                    Regulation ( EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 ( OJ L 57,
Gerichtshof, Austria, by order of that court of 28 August               10 . 3 . 1993 , p. 12 ), relating to the imposition of penalties
1997 in the case of Landesgrundverkehrsreferent der                     on dairies ( purchasers of milk ), valid ?
Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck Liegenschaftsverwal
tungsgesellschaft mbH and (2 ) Bergdorf Wohnbau
Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl Hacker
                               intervening
                          ( Case C-355 /97 )                            Action brought on 21 October 1997 by the Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities against Ireland
                            ( 97/C 370/04 )
                                                                                ( Case C-357/97 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 370/06 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Oberster                        An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
Gerichtshof ( Supreme Court ), Austria , of 28 August 1997,             Justice of the European Communities on 21 October 1997
which was received at the Court Registry on 15 October                  by the Commission of the European Communities,
1997, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Landesgrund              represented by Mr Pieter Jan Kuijper, legal adviser, acting
verkehrsreferent der Tiroler Landesregierung v. ( 1 ) Beck              as agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Liegenschaftsverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH and ( 2 ) Bergdorf             office of Mr Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, a member of its
Wohnbau Gesellschaft mbH in liquidation, Dr Karl                        Legal Service , Centre Wagner, Luxembourg.
Hacker intervening, on the following question:
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should :
is Article 70 of the Act concerning the conditions of                   a ) find that Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations
accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                        under the EC Treaty by failing to adopt the laws,
Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments                        regulations or administrative provisions necessary to
to the Treaties on which the European Union is                               comply with Council Directive 92/29 (') of 31 March
founded ('), which provides that notwithstanding the                         1992 concerning the minimum safety and health
obligations under the treaties on which the European                         requirements for improved medical treatment on
Union is founded the Republic of Austria may maintain its                    board vessels and/or by failing to inform the
existing legislation regarding secondary residences for five                 Commission thereof; and
years from the date of accession (1 January 1995 ),
to be interpreted as meaning that the transitional                      b ) condemn Ireland to bear the costs of the procedure .
provisions in Paragraph 40 ( 2 ) and ( 5 ) of the Tiroler
Grundverkehrsgesetz 1996 ( Landesgesetzblatt fur Tirol                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
No 61 /1996 ), which entered into force on 1 October
1996 , fall within the definition of existing legislation,              Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a directive shall
or are those provisions to be regarded as new                           be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each
legislation if, as a result of decisions of the Austrian                Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the
Verfassungsgerichtshof, the provisions of previous Tirol                Member States to observe the period for compliance laid
laws on the sale of land were not applicable in the                     down in the directive . That period expired on
present case ?                                                          31 December 1994 without Ireland having enacted the
                                                                        provisions necessary to comply with the directive referred
                                                                        to in the conclusions of the Commission .
(') OJ C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994 , p . 1 .
                                                                        (') OJ L 113 , 30 . 4 . 1992 , p . 19 .


title: Case C-346/01: Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
24.11.2001            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 331/9
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
As a result of the fact that directives are binding in nature           Case C-345/01 (2).
pursuant to the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and the first
paragraph of Article 10 EC, the Member States to which a
directive is addressed are bound to transpose the provisions in         (1) OJ L 330 of 5.12.1998, p. 13.
the directive into domestic law so that they are fully effective        (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
by the time the deadline for transposition expires. That
deadline expired on 5 June 2000 without Austria having
adopted the requisite provisions.
(1) OJ 1998 L 330, p. 13.
(2) OJ 1990 L 117, p. 1.                                                Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-
                                                                        mission of the European Communities against the Federal
                                                                                Republic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-347/01)
                                                                                (2001/C 331/14)
Action brought on 13 September 2001 by the Com-                         An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
mission of the European Communities against the Federal                 brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                     Republic of Germany                                ties on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a
                                                                        legal adviser in the Legal Service of the Commission of
                         (Case C-346/01)                                the European Communities, with an address for service in
                                                                        Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member
                                                                        of the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner
                         (2001/C 331/13)
                                                                        Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                   1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                  and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
ties on 13 September 2001 by the Commission of the                            Directive 98/8/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of
European Communities represented by Götz zur Hausen, a                        the Council of 16 February 1998 concerning the placing
legal adviser in the Legal Service of the Commission of                       of biocidal products on the market, or at least by failing
the European Communities, with an address for service in                      to communicate them to the Commission, the Federal
Luxembourg at the office of Luis Escobar Guerrero, a member                   Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
of the Legal Service of the European Commission, Wagner                       under Article 34(1) of that directive.
Centre C 254, Kirchberg, Luxembourg.
                                                                        2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
1.    Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      administrative provisions necessary in order to comply
      with Council Directive 98/81/EEC (1) of 26 October 1998           The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those in
      amending Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of             Case C-345/01 (2): the deadline for transposition expired on
      genetically modified micro-organisms, or at least by              14 May 2000.
      failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal
      Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        (1) OJ L 123 of 24.4.1998, p. 1.
      under Article 2(1) of that Directive.
                                                                        (2) See p. 8 of this Official Journal.
2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.


title: Case C-212/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Republic of Poland), lodged on 3 May 2010 — Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach (Republic of Poland), lodged on 3 May 2010 — Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o. v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach
   (Case C-212/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/20
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Wojewódzki Sąd Administracyjny w Gliwicach

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Logstor ROR Polska Sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Katowicach

      Question referred

   Did Article 4(2) of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital, (1) as amended with effect from 17 June 1985 by Article 1(1) of Directive 85/303/EEC (2) of 10 June 1985, entitle a Member State to reintroduce, as from 1 January 2007, capital duty on a loan taken up by a capital company, if the creditor is entitled to a share in the profits of that company, in the case where the Member State had previously waived the charging of that duty as from the date of accession, that is to say, from 1 May 2004?

      (1)  OJ, English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412.

      (2)  Council Directive amending Directive 69/335/EEC concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1985 L 156, pp. 23-24).


title: Case T-77/05: Action brought on 19 February 2005 by Andrea Balduini against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               16.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/40

         Action brought on 19 February 2005 by Andrea Balduini against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-77/05)
   (2005/C 93/73)
   Language of the case: Italian
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 19 February 2005 by Andrea Balduini, represented by Gabriele Balduini, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul Decision ADMIN. B.2-PC/amd-D (2004)27617 of the appointing authority of 12 November 2004, notified by registered letter with advice of receipt dated 15 November 2004, received on 22 November 2004, and disregard questions 11 and 36 of Test A (specialised knowledge of the field) in competition EPSO/A/11/03, or only one of those questions;

               2.

               accordingly, annul the decision of the selection board for competition EPSO/A/11/03, of which the applicant was informed by communication EPSO/5000LM-EN of 14 May 2004, and determine and declare that the applicant has obtained one of the 450 best marks and, therefore, admit him to the next stages of competition EPSO/A/11/03;

               3.

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   The applicant in this case participated in open competition EPSO/A/11/03, which provided, in the first stage, for three preselection tests to be held.
   By communication of 14 May 2004, the selection board informed the applicant that the overall mark he had obtained in the preselection tests, 44.726 points, was not sufficient for him to be included among the 450 highest-scoring candidates and therefore he had not been admitted to the next stage.
   By a subsequent communication, the selection board explained to all the candidates that the marks in the preselection tests had been determined after the selection board had disregarded five questions in those tests (question 17 in Test A, questions 4 and 20 in Test B and questions 45 and 52 in Test C).
   The requests to the selection board for amendment, and to EPSO for reconsideration, were rejected. According to those two requests, another two questions in Test A (questions 11 and 36) should be disregarded, inasmuch as they were completely incorrect, illogical and incomprehensible, so that the applicant would become one of the 450 best candidates and be admitted to the next stage. Both requests were rejected.
   In support of his claims, the applicant pleads infringement of the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 5(3) of the Staff Regulations.


title: Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

text:
11.4.98               EN               Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 113/1
                                                               I
                                                        (Information)
                                          COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of                Designation of a President of Chambers and assignment of
            Justice of the European Communities                        Judges to Chambers of the Court of First Instance
                         (98/C 113/01)                                                   (98/C 113/04)
Following his appointment as Advocate-General at the              At its plenary meeting of 10 March 1998, the Court of
Court of Justice of the European Communities by                   First Instance, following the departure from office of
Decision of the representatives of the Governments of the         President A. Saggio and the entry into office of Judge P.
Member States of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Antonio                 Mengozzi, decided as follows:
Saggio took the oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  For the period from 10 March 1998, President B.
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 24.
                                                                  Vesterdorf shall preside over the First Chamber and the
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition, and Mr Mengozzi,
                                                                  Judge, is assigned to the First Chamber, the First Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition, and to the Fifth Chamber,
                                                                  Extended Composition.
Taking of the oath by a new member of the Court of First
                                                                  Accordingly, the composition of the Chambers decided
           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                  upon on 2 July 1997 (OJ C 271, 6.9.1997, p. 14) shall be
                         (98/C 113/02)                            amended as follows:
Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First          First Chamber
Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
representatives of the Governments of the Member States           Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Moura Ramos and Mr
of 18 February 1998 (1), Mr Paolo Mengozzi took the               Mengozzi, Judges;
oath before the Court on 4 March 1998.
                                                                  First Chamber, Extended Composition
(1) OJ L 63, 4.3.1998, p. 25.
                                                                  Mr Vesterdorf, President, Mr Bellamy, Mr Moura Ramos,
                                                                  Mr Pirrung and Mr Mengozzi, Judges;
                                                                  Fifth Chamber, Extended Composition
Election of the President of the Court of First Instance of
                  the European Communities                        Mr Azizi, President of Chamber, Mr García-Valdecasas,
                         (98/C 113/03)                            Mr Moura Ramos, Mr Jaeger and Mr Mengozzi, Judges.
At the meeting on 4 March 1998, the Judges of the Court           For cases in which the written procedure was completed
of First Instance of the European Communities elected, in         and a hearing in the oral procedure was held or fixed
accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, Mr           before 10 March 1998 by those Chambers in their
B. Vesterdorf as President of the Court of First Instance         previous composition, but without President Saggio, they
for the period from 4 March 1998 up to 31 August 1998.            shall continue to sit with that composition.


title: Case C-310/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — F.T.S. International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West (Common Customs Tariff — Combined Nomenclature — Classification — Boneless chicken cuts, frozen and impregnated with salt — Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002)

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/8

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 18 July 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam, Netherlands) — F.T.S. International BV v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West
   (Case C-310/06) (1)

   (Common Customs Tariff - Combined Nomenclature - Classification - Boneless chicken cuts, frozen and impregnated with salt - Validity of Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002)
   (2007/C 211/14)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: F.T.S. International BV

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Douane West
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Validity of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature (OJ 2002 L 179, p. 8) — Boneless chicken cuts, frozen and impregnated with salt
   Operative part of the judgment
   Commission Regulation (EC) No 1223/2002 of 8 July 2002 concerning the classification of certain goods in the Combined Nomenclature is invalid.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case F-38/15: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 March 2016 — FJ v Parliament

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 7 March 2016 — FJ v Parliament
   (Case F-38/15) (1)

   (2016/C 136/73)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1/6/2015, p. 26.


No C 269/22             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     14 . 9 . 96
        Removal from the register of Case C-5/96 ( 1 )                       Removal from the register of Case C-413/93 ( )
                           ( 96/C 269/46 )                                                        ( 96/C 269/50 )
By order of 23 May 1996 , the President of the Court of                By order of 19 June 1996 , 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-5/96 : Commission of the                   from the register of Case C-413/93 ( Request for a
European Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                             preliminary ruling from the Pretura circondariale di
                                                                       Trapani ): Criminal proceedings against Matteo Peralta .
(') OJ No C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 300 , 6 . 11 . 1993 .
      Removal from the register of Case C-387/95 (')
                           ( 96/C 269/47 )                                   Removal from the register of Case C-121 /94 (')
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/51 )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the               By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
register of Case C-387/95 : Commission of the European                 Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
Communities v. Ireland .                                               from the register of Case C-121 /94 ( Request for a
                                                                       preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht ): Domingo
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        Gonzalez-Rodriguez v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit.
                                                                       (') OJ No C 174 , 25 . 6 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-394/95 (')
                            ( 96/C 269/48 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-385/95 ( )
By order of 3 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/52 )
of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-394/95 : Commission of the European                 By order of 28 June 1996 , the President of the Court of
Communities v. Ireland .                                               Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                                                                       from the register of Case C-385/95 : Commission of the
(') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
                                                                       (') OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .
       Removal from the register of Case C-40/96 ( )
                            ( 96/C 269/49 )
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-393/95 ( )
 By order of 5 June 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice                                   ( 96/C 269/53 )
 of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
register of Case C-40/96 : Commission of the European                   By order of 9 July 1 996 , the President of the Court of Justice
 Communities v. Kingdom of Spain .                                      of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
                                                                        register of Case C-393/95 : Commission of the European
 (') OJ No C 95 , 30 . 3 . 1996 .                                       Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
                                                                        (>) OJ No C 31 , 3 . 2 . 1996 .


title: Case C-22/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Athanasios Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900

text:
               26.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 107/10

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 22 January 2008 — Athanasios Vatsouras v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900
   (Case C-22/08)
   (2008/C 107/15)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Sozialgericht Nürnberg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Athanasios Vatsouras

      Defendant: Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 (1) compatible with Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the negative, does Article 12 EC in conjunction with Article 39 EC preclude national rules which exclude Union citizens from receipt of social assistance if the maximum period of residence permitted under Article 6 of Directive 2004/38 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 has been exceeded and there is no right of residence under other provisions?

               3.

               If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, does Article 12 EC preclude national rules which exclude nationals of Member States of the European Union even from receipt of the social assistance benefits which are granted to illegal immigrants?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77.


title: Case F-17/15: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Appraisal — Appraisal report — Request for amendment — Refusal)

text:
               8.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 48/96

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Chamber) of 10 December 2015 — Jäger-Waldau v Commission
   (Case F-17/15) (1)

   ((Civil service - Officials - Appraisal - Appraisal report - Request for amendment - Refusal))
   (2016/C 048/109)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Arnulf Jäger-Waldau (Laveno, Italy) (represented by: D. Fouquet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented: initially by J. Currall and G. Berscheid, acting as Agents, and subsequently by G. Berscheid, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Annulment of the Appointing Authority’s decision not to amend the applicant’s 2013 appraisal report.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Declares that Mr Jäger-Waldau shall bear his own costs and orders him to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 127, 20.4.2015, p. 40.


title: Case C-336/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015  — European Commission v IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (Appeals — Commission decision ordering the repayment of financial assistance — Compliance with a judgment of the General Court of the European Union — Distinction between default interest and compensatory interest — Calculation of interest)

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/3

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 12 February 2015 — European Commission v IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH
   (Case C-336/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeals - Commission decision ordering the repayment of financial assistance - Compliance with a judgment of the General Court of the European Union - Distinction between default interest and compensatory interest - Calculation of interest))
   (2015/C 118/04)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: F. Dintilhac, G. Wilms and G. Zavvos, acting as Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: IPK International — World Tourism Marketing Consultants GmbH (represented by: C. Pitschas, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in IPK International v Commission (T-671/11, EU:T:2013:163) to the extent that it orders the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to be fixed on the basis of the amount of the principal debt, plus the interest that has already accrued;

               2)

               Dismisses the appeal as to the remainder;

               3)

               Orders that the default interest payable by the European Commission to IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH be calculated solely on the basis of the amount of the principal debt;

               4)

               Orders the European Commission and IPK International — World Marketing Consultants GmbH to bear their own costs in relation to the present proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-68/06: Action brought on  6 February 2006  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/11

         Action brought on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-68/06)
   (2006/C 74/21)
   Language of the case: Greek
   An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 6 February 2006 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Minas Konstantinidis, of its Legal Service, and Florence Simonetti, a national expert, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by not adopting, and in any event by not notifying to the Commission, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2001/42/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 June 2001 on the assessment of the effects of certain plans and programmes on the environment, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The time-limit for transposition of the directive into domestic law expired on 21 July 2004.

      (1)  OJ L 197, 21.7.2001, p. 30.


title: Case T-457/14 P: Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Rouffaud v EEAS (Appeal — Civil Service — Auxiliary member of contract staff — Reclassification of contract — Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint — Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/52

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 July 2015 — Rouffaud v EEAS
   (Case T-457/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Civil Service - Auxiliary member of contract staff - Reclassification of contract - Rule of correspondence between the application and the complaint - Article 91(2) of the Staff Regulations of Officials))
   (2015/C 302/67)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: Thierry Rouffaud (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: initially M. de Abreu Caldas, D. de Abreu Caldas and J. N. Louis, then J. N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European External Action Service (EEAS) (represented by: S. Marquardt and M. Silva, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Rouffaud v EEAS (F-59/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:49), and seeking to have that judgment set aside.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Sets aside the judgment of European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 9 April 2014 in Rouffaud v EEAS (F-59/13, ECR-SC, EU:F:2014:49);

               2.

               Refers the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

               3.

               Reserves the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 261, 11.8.2014.


title: Case C-165/99: Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Republic of Austria against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/13
Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Portuguese                           — The applicable system of landing taxes at Portuguese
Republic against Commission of the European Communi-                          airports is not discriminatory or the ground of the
                                ties                                          nationality of users: the differentiation between domestic
                                                                              and international traffic does not infringe Article 12 EC (ex
                                                                              Article 6) given that, under Article 3 of Council Regulation
                         (Case C-163/99)                                      (EEC) No 2408/92 (1), Community air carriers have right
                                                                              of access to operate internal routes on an entirely equal
                                                                              footing with national operators. The 50 % reduction of the
                         (1999/C 226/21)                                      taxes on domestic flights affects, first and foremost,
                                                                              connections between continental Portugal and the Auton-
                                                                              omous Regions and between the Autonomous Regions,
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     which, because of their insularity, have no alternative to
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  air transport. Other domestic flights also benefit from such
Communities on 4 May 1999 by the Portuguese Republic,                         a reduction because they are short-haul flights whose fares
represented by Dr Luı́s Fernandes. Dr Maria Luı́sa Duarte and                 must be kept low. The validity of these reasons and their
Dr Fátima Viegas, acting as Agents with an address for service               compatibility with the Treaty is inextricably linked with
in Luxembourg at the Portuguese Embassy, 33 Allée Scheffer.                   the overriding objective of economic and social cohesion
                                                                              (see Article 3(k) EC (formerly 3(j))) and with the acknowl-
                                                                              edgement in the Treaty of the status as outermost regions
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                   of the Azores and Madeira (see Article 227 of the EC
                                                                              Treaty — now, after amendment, Art. 299(2) EC).
— Uphold the present action and, accordingly, annul the                  — The applicable system of landing taxes at Portuguese
     Commission’s decision of 10 February 1999 relating to a                  airports does not entail abuse of a dominant position: the
     proceeding under Article 90 of the EC Treaty (IV/35.703                  interpretation which the Commission puts forward in the
     — Portuguese airports).                                                  contested decision of Article 82 EC (ex Article 86), in
                                                                              conjunction with Article 86 EC (ex Article 90), is contrary
                                                                              to the principle of neutrality, as laid clown in Article 295
                                                                              EC (ex Article 222). Undertakings operating exclusive
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               concessions and public undertakings are otherwise pre-
                                                                              vented from resorting to business strategies, such as
                                                                              bulk-order discounts which are widely used by undertak-
(Anent procedure followed and measures adopted by the                         ings and are dictated by the economic requirement to
Commission)                                                                   show a profit.
— Breach of the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         (1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access
                                                                             for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes, OJ
— Breach of the principle of proportionality: since the                      1992 L 240, p. 8.
     distinction between domestic and international traffic for
     the purpose of levying airport taxes is provided for in the
     legislation applicable to most airports of the European
     Union, the most appropriate and least onerous measure
     would have been a directive. By imposing on a Member
     State the specific obligation of modifying unilaterally the
     amount or the methods for implementing airport landing
     taxes, the Commission disregarded the detrimental and
     serious effect of such a measure on the competitive
     conditions between air carriers on the Community market.
     Only a directive, which prescribes the same period for all
     the Member States for its implementation, can ensure the
     necessary harmonisation of national laws and that changes           Action brought on 4 May 1999 by the Republic of Austria
     will take place at the same time, as required by the rules of         against the Commission of the European Communities
     fair competition in the field of airport taxes and of air
     transport in general.
                                                                                (Case C-165/99)
— Abuse of process: a decision adopted under Article 86(3)
     (ex Article 90) only constitutes a fair and lawful alternative
     to infringement proceedings where such a decision is a                                       (1999/C 226/22)
     necessary, adequate and proportionate measure.
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
(Anent the lack of substantive grounds for the adoption of a             ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
decision finding an infringement of Article 86(1) EC (ex Article         Communities on 4 May 1999 by the Republic of Austria,
90) and Article 82 EC (ex Article 86))                                   represented by Dr Harald Dossi, of the Constitutional Service
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/14              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                      7.8.1999
of the Federal Chancellor’s Office, acting as Agent, assisted by         — (In the alternative) Infringements of the law and inadequate
Dr Michael Schütte, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service                statement of reasons in the application of Article 92(3) of
in Luxembourg al the office of Dr Josef Magerl, Ambassador,                  the EC Treaty.
at the Austrian Embassy, 3 Rue des Bains.
                                                                         (1) Not published in the Official Journal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— Annul Commission Decision K (1999) 325 endg. of
    3 February 1999 (1) on State aid granted by Austria in the
    form of an exemption from drinks tax on wine and other
    fermented drinks in the case of direct sale to the consumer
    at the place of production;                                          Appeal brought on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A., Lomagenais
                                                                         S.A., Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech against the
                                                                         order made on 9 March 1999 by the Fourth Chamber of
                                                                         the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
— Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                 in Case T-205/98 between Clauni S.A. and Others and the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-170/99 P)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (1999/C 226/23)
— Breach of essential procedural requirements: The Com-
    mission made incorrect findings of fact on a number of               An appeal against the order made on 9 March 1999 by the
    points of importance for the question of classifying the             Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
    rule as a general measure or as aid and in examining                 Communities in Case T-205/98 between Clauni S.A and
    whether there is significant distortion of competition and           Others and the Commission of the European Communities
    effect on trade.                                                     was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities on 6 May 1999 by Clauni S.A. Lomagenais S.A.,
                                                                         Jean-Marie Bissières and André Lompech, represented by
— Infringement of the EC Treaty as a result of incorrect                 Daniel Veyssière, of the Agen Bar, with an address for service
    application of Article 92(1): The exemption from drinks              in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloïse May 31 Grand-Rue.
    tax of on-the-spot sales of wine does not constitute an
    exception to the principle that sales of wine at the first           The appellants claim that the Court should:
    lever of trace are not subject to drinks tax. The tax
    exemption for on-the-spot sales is also justified from the           — set aside in its entirety the order declaring the action
    point of view of efficiency. If adverse effects on competition           inadmissible;
    occur as a result of general measures, the basis for
    eliminating those adverse effects is not the State aid
    procedure but, if necessary, a procedure for approximation           — allow the appellants’ claim for a rebate (1) or, more
    of laws.                                                                 precisely, their application for annulment of the implicit
                                                                             decision rejecting their claim for a rebate;
    It is not evident why an exemption from drinks tax which             — grant the application for annulment of the Commission’s
    directly benefits the final consumer should lead to at                   decision refusing to issue import certificates based on the
                                                                             quota for Poland, which is the corollary of that claim for a
    least indirect advantages for farmers. It depends on the
                                                                             rebate;
    individual case to what extent a wine-grower can obtain a
    higher remuneration because no drinks tax is charged. In
    any event, a higher remuneration is not attributable to the          — order the Commission to pay the costs.
    State even indirectly.
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
— Inadequate statement of reasons, breach of Article 190 of
    the EC Treaty: The Commission failed to address the                  — Material error and contradiction in the grounds stated as
    arguments of the Republic of Austria adequately or in                    regards the chronology of the facts, giving rise to an
    some cases at all.                                                       erroneous computation of the procedural time-limits.
                                                                         — Distortion of the claim for a rebate and of the appellants’
    It erred in law by assuming that it did not have to apply                choice of procedure:
    the provisions or the common organisation of the market
    in wine; according to the case-law of the Court of Justice,              — the applicant, taking note of the implicit initial refusal
    however, the rules on State aid apply only secondarily                        of the Commission to allocate the goods in issue to the
    compared to the Provisions on the organisation of the                         Community quota, expressly requested the Com-
    market.                                                                       mission, in its rebate application of 20 December