title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 8 July 1999 in Case C-49/92 P: Commission of the European Communities v Anic Partecipazioni SpA (Appeal - Commission's Rules of Procedure - Procedure for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the Commission - Competition rules applicable to undertakings - Concepts of agreement and concerted practice - Responsibility of an undertaking for an infringement as a whole - Attachment of liability for the infringement - Fine)

text:
20.11.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 333/3
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                             of 1 July 1999
in Case C-14/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                 of 8 July 1999
the Pretura Circondariale di Torino): Battital Srl v Regione
                              Piemonte (1)
                                                                             in Case C-49/92 P: Commission of the European Com-
                                                                                munities v Anic Partecipazioni SpA (1)
(Plant health protection — Directive 77/93/EEC — Directi-
ve 92/76/EEC — Ban on the introduction into Italy of
plants of the Citrus genus from non-member countries —                       (Appeal — Commission’s Rules of Procedure — Procedure
                          Limitation in time)                                for the adoption of a decision by the College of Members
                                                                             of the Commission — Competition rules applicable to
                            (1999/C 333/04)                                  undertakings — Concepts of agreement and concerted prac-
                                                                             tice — Responsibility of an undertaking for an infringement
                                                                             as a whole — Attachment of liability for the infringement
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                — Fine)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                                                     (1999/C 333/05)
In Case C-14/98: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretura
Circondariale di Torino (District Magistrate’s Court, Turin),                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Battital Srl and Regione Piemonte
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 77/93/EEC
of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
introduction into the Member States of harmful organisms of                                      in the European Court Reports)
plants or plant products (OJ 1977 L 26, p. 20), as amended, in
particular, by Council Directive 91/683/EEC of 19 December
1991 (OJ 1991 L 376, p. 29) and Commission Directi-                          In Case C-49/92 P: Commission of the European Communities
ve 96/14/Euratom, ECSC, EC of 12 March 1996 (OJ 1996                         (Agent: G. Marenco) — Appeal against the judgment of the
L 68, p. 24), and of Commission Directive 92/76/EEC of                       Court of First Instance of the European Communities (First
6 October 1992 recognising protected zones exposed to                        Chamber) of 17 December 1991 in Case T-6/89 Enichem Anic
particular plant health risks in the Community (OJ 1992                      v Commission [1991] ECR II-1623, seeking to have that
L 305, p. 12), as amended by Commission Directive 95/40/EC                   judgment set aside, the other party to the proceedings being
of 19 July 1995 (OJ 1995 L 182, p. 14) and Commission                        Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly Anic SpA, then Enichem
Directive 96/15/EC of 14 March 1996 (OJ 1996 L 70, p. 35)                    Anic SpA, whose registered office is in Palermo, Italy, rep-
— the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch,                        resented by M. Siragusa and G. Guarino, of the Rome Bar, and
President of the Chamber, G.F. Mancini and R. Schintgen                      G. Scassellati Sforzolini and F.M. Moretti, of the Bologna Bar,
(Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,              with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment             Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt — the Court
on 1 July 1999, in which it held:                                            (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the
                                                                             Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray
                                                                             and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;
The ban on importing fruits of the Citrus genus into the protected           H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau,
zone Italy, set out in Article 4(2)(a) of Council Directive 77/93/EEC        Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
of 21 December 1976 on protective measures against the introduc-             on 8 July 1999, in which it:
tion into the Member States of harmful organisms of plants or plant
products, ceased to apply in that Member State on 1 April 1996,
the date on which recognition of Italy as a protected zone under             1. Annuls point 1, second and third indents, of the operative part
Commission Directive 92/76/EEC of 6 October 1992 recognising                     of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 17 December
protected zones exposed to particular plant health risks in the                  1991 in Case T-6/89 Enichem Anic v Commission;
Community came to an end by application of Commission Directi-
ve 95/40/EC of 19 July 1995 and Commission Directive 96/15/EC
of 14 March 1996.                                                            2. Dismisses Anic’s action against Commission Deci-
                                                                                sion 86/398/EEC of 23 April 1986 relating to a proceeding
                                                                                under Article 85 of the EEC Treaty (IV/31.149 — Polypropy-
Those directives preclude the application of national legislation which          lene), except to the extent that results from point 1, first indent,
keeps such a ban in force beyond that date.                                      of the operative part of that judgment;
(1) OJ C 72 of 7.3.1998.                                                     3. Sets the amount of the fine imposed on Anic Partecipazioni SpA,
                                                                                formerly Anic SpA, then Enichem Anic SpA, in Article 3 of
                                                                                Decision 86/398/EEC at the sum of ITL 662 215 500;
 ---pagebreak--- C 333/4                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        20.11.1999
4. Dismisses the cross-appeal by Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly        2. Orders Hercules Chemicals NV to pay the costs.
    Anic SpA, then Enichem Anic SpA;
                                                                          (1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.
5. Orders each party to bear its own costs relating to the proceedings
    before the Court of First Instance;
6. Orders Anic Partecipazioni SpA, formerly Anic SpA, then
    Enichem Anic SpA, to pay the costs relating to these proceedings.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 77 of 28.3.1992.                                                                          (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 8 July 1999
                                                                          in Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG v Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Appeal — Rules of Procedure of the Court of First Instance
                                                                          — Reopening of the oral procedure — Commission’s Rules
                                                                          of Procedure — Procedure for the adoption of a decision by
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                     the College of Members of the Commission — Competition
                                                                          rules applicable to undertakings — Concepts of agreement
                                                                          and concerted practice — Principles and rules applicable to
                         (Sixth Chamber)                                           evidence — Presumption of innocence — Fine)
                           of 8 July 1999                                                           (1999/C 333/07)
in Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV v Commission                                        (Language of the case: German)
               of the European Communities (1)
                                                                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
(Appeal — Procedure — Obligation to deliver judgments in                                     in the European Court Reports)
cases concerning the same decision at the same time — Rules
of Procedure of the Commission — Procedure for the
                                                                          In Case C-199/92 P: Hüls AG, whose registered office is in Marl,
adoption of a decision by the College of Members of the                   Germany, represented by H.-J. Herrmann and subsequently by
Commission — Competition rules applicable to undertakings                 F. Montag, Rechtsanwälte, Cologne, with an address for service
    — Rights of the defence — Access to the file — Fine)                  in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch & Wolter, 8
                                                                          Rue Zithe, supported by DSM NV, whose registered office is in
                         (1999/C 333/06)                                  Heerlen, Netherlands, represented by I.G.F. Cath, of The Hague
                                                                          Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
                                                                          Chambers of L. Dupong, 14a Rue des Bains, appeal against the
                                                                          judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of
                   (Language of the case: English)                        10 March 1992 in Case T-9/89 Hüls v Commission [1992]
                                                                          ECR II-499, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other
                                                                          party to the proceedings being the Commission of the
In Case C-51/92 P: Hercules Chemicals NV, whose registered                European Communities (Agents: G. zur Hausen and B. Jansen)
office is at Beringen, Belgium, represented by M. Siragusa, of            the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn,
the Rome Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                          President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporte-
the Chambers of Messrs Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Côte d’Eich,
                                                                          ur), J.L. Murray and H. Ragnemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advo-
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          cate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louter-
the European Communities (First Chamber) of 17 December                   man-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has
1991 in Case T-7/89 Hercules v Commission[1991] ECR II-                   given a judgment on 8 July 1999, in which it:
1711, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party
to the proceedings being the Commission of the European                   1. Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Agent: K. Banks) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
composed of: P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,                    2. Orders Hüls AG to pay the costs;
G. Hirsch, G.F. Mancini (Rapporteur), J.L. Murray and H. Rag-
nemalm, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Hol-                  3. Orders DSM NV to pay its own costs.
stein, Deputy Registrar, and D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
8 July 1999, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 167 of 4.7.1992.
1. Dismisses the appeal;


title: Case C-92/99: Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Portuguese Republic

text:
C 160/6                   EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.6.1999
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                    Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission
                                                                          of the European Communities against the Portuguese
                                                                                Republic
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (5); the period for
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.                                                     (Case C-93/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 160/13)
( 1) OJ L 162, 1.7.1996, p. 1.
( 2) OJ L 32, 5.2.1985, p. 14.
( 3) OJ L 373, 31.12.1990, p. 1.                                          An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
( 4) OJ L 268, 24.9.1991, p. 56.                                          the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
( 5) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          Vieira, of its 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, Kirchberg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:
                                                                          — declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
Action brought on 17 March 1999 by the Commission                               period all the measures needed to comply fully with
of the European Communities against the Portuguese                              Council Directive 96/22/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
                                 Republic                                       Directives 81/602/EEC (2) and 88/299/EEC (3), the Portu-
                                                                                guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
                                                                                Treaty,
                             (Case C-92/99)
                                                                          — order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.
                            (1999/C 160/12)
                                                                          Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
the Court of Justice on 17 March 1999 by the Commission of
                                                                          The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
the European Communities, represented by Ana Maria Alves
                                                                          are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (4); the period for
Vieira, of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                          implementing the Directive expired on 1 July 1997.
service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
Cruz, also of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                          ( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
The applicant claims that the Court of Justice should:                    ( 2) OJ L 222 , 7.8.1981, p. 32.
                                                                          ( 3) OJ L 128, 21.5.1988, p. 36.
                                                                          ( 4) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.
— declare that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed
      period all the measures needed to comply fully with
      Council Directive 96/23/EC (1) of 29 April 1996 repealing
      Directives 85/358/EEC (2) and 86/469/EEC (3) and
      Decisions 89/187/EEC(4) and 91/664/EEC (5), the Portu-
      guese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the
      Treaty,
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverga-
— order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                         beamt by order of that tribunal of 5 March 1999 in the
                                                                          review procedure of ARGE Gewässerschutz v. Bundesmi-
                                                                                nisterium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
                                                                                (Case C-94/99)
The contentions and principal arguments adduced in support
are similar to those in Case C-78/99 (6); the period for                                              (1999/C 160/14)
implementing the directive expired on 1 July 1997.
                                                                          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
( 1) OJ L 125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.                                          European Communities by an order of the Bundesvergabeamt
( 2) OJ L 191, 23.7.1985, p. 46.                                          (Federal Procurement Office), Austria, of 5 March 1999, which
( 3) OJ L 275, 26.9.1986, p. 36.                                          was received at the Court Registry on 17 March 1999, for a
( 4) OJ L 66, 10.3.1989, p. 37.                                           preliminary ruling in the review procedure of ARGE Gewässer-
( 5) OJ L 368, 31.12.1991, p. 17.                                         schutz v. Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft on
( 6) See p. 3 of this Official Journal.                                   the following questions:
                                                                          I.    Does the decision of a contracting authority to admit to an
                                                                                award procedure bodies which receive subsidies of any


title: Case C-56/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tallinna Halduskohus (Estonia) lodged on 13 February 2008 — Pärlitigu OÜ v Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
   (Case C-56/08)
   (2008/C 92/36)
   Language of the case: Estonian
   Referring court
   Tallinna Halduskohus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pärlitigu OÜ

      Defendant: Maksu- ja Tolliameti Põhja maksu- ja tollikeskus
   Questions referred

               (1)

               Must the Combined Nomenclature for the Common Customs Tariff which forms Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 (1) of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff be interpreted as meaning that frozen backbones (bones with fish meat) of farmed Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), obtained after filleting the fish, fit for human consumption and normally marketed as a foodstuff, come under

                           (a)

                           subheading 0511 91 10, ‘fish waste’,
                           or

                           (b)

                           subheading 0303220015, ‘Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) — other — other’?

               (2)

               If the answer to Question 1 is alternative (b), is the table in Article 1(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 85/2006 (2) of 17 January 2006 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of farmed salmon originating in Norway void as contrary to the principle of proportionality laid down in Article 5 of the EC Treaty in so far as, according to that table, the minimum import price established for frozen salmon backbones is higher than the minimum import price for whole fish and gutted head-on fish?

      (1)  OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 2006 L 15, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 September 2007 — Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission (Competition — Administrative procedure — Commission's powers of investigation — Documents seized in the course of an investigation — Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients — Admissibility)

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/43

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 17 September 2007 — Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-125/03 and T-253/03) (1)

   (Competition - Administrative procedure - Commission's powers of investigation - Documents seized in the course of an investigation - Legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients - Admissibility)
   (2007/C 269/77)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicants: Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd (Hersham, Walton on Thames, Surrey, United Kingdom), Akcros Chemicals Ltd (Hersham) (represented by C. Swaak, M. Mollica and M. van der Woude, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities (represented initially by R Wainwright and C. Ingen-Housz, and subsequently by F. Castillo de la Torre and X. Lewis, Agents),

      Interveners in support of the defendants: The Council of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Union (CCBE) (Brussels, Belgium), (represented by J. Flynn QC); Algemene Raad van de Nederlandse Orde van Advocaten (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by O. Brouwer and C. Schillemans, lawyers); European Company Lawyers Association (ECLA) (Brussels) (represented by M. Dolmans, K. Nordlander, lawyers, and J. Temple Lang, solicitor); American Corporate Counsel Association (ACCA) — European Chapter (Paris, France) (represented by G. Berrisch, lawyer, and D. Hull, solicitor); International Bar Association (IBA) (London, United Kingdom) (represented by J. Buhart, lawyer)
   Re:
   Application, first, for the annulment of Commission decision C(2003) 559/4 of 10 February 2003 and, so far as necessary, of Commission decision C(2003) 85/4 of 30 January 2003 ordering Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd, Akcros Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals and their respective subsidiaries to submit to an investigation on the basis of Article 14(3) of Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First Council Regulation implementing Articles [81 EC] and [82 EC] (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-1962, p. 87) (Case COMP/E-1/38.589) and for an order requiring the Commission to return certain documents seized in the course of the investigation in question and not to use their contents (Case T-125/03) and, second, for the annulment of Commission decision C(2003) 1533 final of 8 May 2003 rejecting a request for the protection of those documents on grounds of legal professional privilege protecting communications between lawyers and their clients (Case T-253/03).
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-125/03 as inadmissible;

               2.

               Dismisses the action in Case T-253/03 as unfounded;

               3.

               Orders Akzo Nobel Chemicals Ltd and Akcros Chemicals Ltd to bear three fifths of their own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief, and to pay three fifths of the costs incurred by the Commission relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief;

               4.

               Orders the Commission to bear two fifths of its own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief, and to pay two fifths of the costs incurred by Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief;

               5.

               Orders the interveners to bear their own costs relating to the main proceedings and to the proceedings for interim relief.

      (1)  OJ C 146, 21.6.2003.


title: Case C-256/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Telekom-Control-Kommission by application of 13 June 2005 in a procedure concerning Telekom Austria AG

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Telekom-Control-Kommission by application of 13 June 2005 in a procedure concerning Telekom Austria AG
   (Case C-256/05)
   (2005/C 205/23)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by application of the Telekom-Control-Kommission of 13 June 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 June 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the procedure concerning Telekom Austria AG on the following question:
   Is Commission Decision C(2004)4070 final of 20 October 2004, by which the Telekom-Control-Kommission is required under Article 7(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) to withdraw the draft decision notified on 20 July 2004, in Procedure M 9/03 M 9a/03 registered by the Commission under No AT/2004/0090, relating to the market analysis in respect of the market for ‘transit services in the fixed public telephone network’, valid in the light of Article 253 of the EC Treaty, Articles 7(4), 8(2), 14, 15 and 16 of Directive 2002/21/EC, the Commission guidelines on market analysis and the markets recommendation of the Commission?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.


title: Case C-132/99: Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the Netherlands against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
7.8.1999                EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 226/9
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                  1. annul the decision of the Commission of the European
                                                                               Communities of 3 February 1999 on the clearance of the
                         of 27 April 1999                                      accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                               expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-436/97 P: Deutsche Bahn AG v Commission of                           European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                 the European Communities (1)                                  (Decision 1999/187/EC); (1)
(Appeal — Admissibility — Competition — Carriage by rail                   2. order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
of maritime containers — Dominant Position — Abuse —
                                Fines)
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
                          (1999/C 226/14)
                                                                           — Breach of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 of the Council of
                   (Language of the case: German)                              29 June 1970 on the common organisation of the market
                                                                               in flax and hemp (2): the reduction of 50% for failure to
                                                                               harvest ripe hemp seed lacks any basis. Nothing in
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70 or in the measures
                   in the European Court Reports)                              implementing or applying it, as laid clown in Regulation
                                                                               (EEC) No 619/71 (3) and Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89 (4),
In Case C-436/97 P, Deutsche Bahn AG, established in                           provides that a grower is entitled to the full amount of aid
Frankfurt, Germany, represented by Jochim Sedemund,                            only if both fibres and seeds are harvested. Nor is it
Rechtsanwalt, Berlin, with an address for service in Luxem-                    anywhere provided that, where fibres alone are harvested,
bourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue —                            only half of the amount of production aid is payable;
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition) of 21 October 1997 in Case                  — Breach of Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) No 1308/70: in
T-229/94 Deutsche Bahn v Commission [1997] ECR II-1689,                        view of the fact that all hemp in the Netherlands which is
seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the                eligible for aid is grown with certified seed controlled in
proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities                      accordance with Community rules, the Commission’s
(Agent: Klaus Wiedner, assisted by Heinze-Joachim Freund) —                    contention that there is inadequate control in the Nether-
the Court (Fifth Chamber) composed of: J.-P. Puissochet,                       lands of imports of hemp seed from non-member countries
President, P. Jann (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, D.A.O. Edward                     is irrelevant, quite apart from the question whether this
and L. Sevón, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-                   contention is correct. With regard to the expenditure which
eral; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 April                    it declared for the 1995 financial year, the Netherlands
1999, in which it held:                                                        complied with the provisions;
1. The appeal is dismissed.
                                                                           — Failure to take account of the Dutch text of Article 4 of
2. Deutsche Bahn AG is to pay the costs.                                       Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: the Dutch text of Article
                                                                               4(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89, as worded prior to
                                                                               the 1994 hemp harvest, limited the scope of that provision
(1) OJ C 94 of 28.3.1998.                                                      to flax. There was therefore no obligation to harvest
                                                                               hemp only once the seeds had formed. The Netherlands
                                                                               authorities had no reason to doubt the accuracy of the
                                                                               Dutch translation. In taking the view that the Netherlands
                                                                               authorities acted contrary to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                               No 1164/89, the Commission fails to appreciate the
                                                                               significance of the principle that it must be possible to rely
                                                                               on a directly applicable provision of Community law in an
Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                          authentic language;
Netherlands against the Commission of the European
                           Communities
                                                                           — Misconstruction of the term ‘seed formation’ in Article
                          (Case C-132/99)                                      4(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89: since the seeds are
                                                                               formed at the time of blossoming and are harvested after
                                                                               blossoming, the Netherlands Government takes the view
                          (1999/C 226/15)                                      that, so far as the 1994 hemp harvest is concerned, the
                                                                               requirements of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1164/89
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                      were complied with in so far as they applied to the
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                   1994 hemp harvest. The Commission proceeds on a
Communities on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                             misconstruction of Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Jantine van                      1164/89, as it applied at the time of the 1994 harvest,
Bakel, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign                     when it claims that the Netherlands acted contrary to that
Affairs in The Hague, acting as Agents.                                        article;
 ---pagebreak--- C 226/10                 EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.8.1999
— Breach of the requirement to state reasons;                                     the production of milk protein. Directive 83/417/EEC is
                                                                                based on Article 94 EC (ex Article 100), and its object is
— Infringement of the principle of equality.                                      to remove barriers to trace. This means that Directive
                                                                                83/417/EEC — the legal basis of which is (only) Article 94
                                                                                EC (ex Article 100) — cannot limit the scope of Regulation
( 1) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.                                                         (EEC) No 2921/90. Moreover, Regulation (EEC) No
( 2) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (II), p. 411.                               2921/90 does not contain any provision referring to
( 3) OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (I), p. 169.                                Directive 83/417/EEC.
( 4) OJ 1989 L 121, p. 4.
                                                                                In the alternative, the Kingdom of the Netherlands con-
                                                                                siders that the production of caseinates involving the
                                                                                addition of AAS has taken place in accordance with
                                                                                Directive 83/417/EEC.
                                                                                The Commission is incorrect in its further assertion that
                                                                                the granting of aid for production of the caseinate known
Action brought on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                             as EMST is contrary to Article 1(1) and (3) of Regulation
Netherlands against the Commission of the European                                (EEC) No 2921/90. EMST is not produced from a caseinate
                             Communities                                          but from residues of semi-finished products.
                           (Case C-133/99)                                   — Infringement of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                                729/70 (4) and breach of the principle of the duty to
                           (1999/C 226/16)                                        cooperate in good faith, of the audi alteram parte rule and
                                                                                of the agreed preventive approach: the Kingdom of the
                                                                                Netherlands acknowledges that Regulation (EC) No
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                         1287/95 (5) did not become applicable until the financial
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                      year commencing on 16 October 1995, but considers that
Communities on 17 April 1999 by the Kingdom of the                                Article 5(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 729/70 constitutes a
Netherlands, represented by Marc Fierstra and Nynke Wijmen-                       specific enunciation of the obligation incumbent on the
ga, Assistant Legal Advisers in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,                  Commission to cooperate in good faith in the clearance of
The Hague, acting as Agents.                                                      the accounts of the Guarantee Section of the EAGGF.
                                                                                The Commission has completely ignored the criticism
                                                                                expressed by the conciliation body, persisting instead in
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                       the views previously advanced by it without putting
                                                                                forward any detailed arguments in support. The preventive
1. annul Commission Decision 1999/187/EC (1) of 3 February                        approach agreed within the framework of the Belle pro-
     1999 — notified on 12 February 1999 — on the clearance                       cedure has not been adopted in any respect whatever,
     of the accounts presented by the Member States in respect                    although there was every reason to adopt it. The Com-
     of the expenditure for 1995 of the Guarantee Section of                      munity legislation clearly does not fend itself to an
     the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund,                       unequivocal interpretation. As soon as it became clear that
     in so far as it excludes the Netherlands from Community                      the Commission had objections, both the Netherlands
     financing in the sum of NLG 39 182 606 (composed of                          authorities and the undertaking concerned adopted very
     NLG 32 746 529 in relation to the use of aluminium                           dynamic measures, despite the doubts which existed, and
     ammonium sulphate (‘AAS’) and NLG 6 436 077 in                               continue to exist, regarding the validity of those objections.
     relation to the production of EMST) with regard to aid for                   By failing to take those circumstances into account when
     the processing of skimmed milk into casein and caseinates;                   fixing the amount of the adjustment, the Commission has
                                                                                acted in disregard of the promise expressly made by it
2. order the Commission to pay the costs.                                         concerning the application of Article 5(2)(c) of Regulation
                                                                                (EEC) No 729/70.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              — Breach of the principle of legal certainty.
— Infringement of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
                                                                             — Breach of the requirement to provide a statement of
     2921/90 (2) on aid for the production of casein and
                                                                                reasons.
     caseinates from skimmed milk: the Commission is incor-
     rect in its assertion that the production of caseinates
     involving the use of AAS is contrary to the conditions laid             ( 1) OJ 1999 L 61, p. 37.
     down in Directive 83/417/EEC (3) and that, consequently,                ( 2) OJ 1990 L 279, p. 220.
     the conditions for the grant of aid under Regulation (EEC)              ( 3) OJ 1983 L 237, p. 25.
     No 2921/90 have not been fulfilled. Regulation (EEC) No                 ( 4) OJ, English Special Edition 1970 (I), p. 218.
     2921/90 concerns the pursuit of objectives within the                   ( 5) OJ 1995 L 125, p. 1.
     framework of the common agricultural policy, and lays
     clown conditions for the granting of aid for the processing
     of milk. That aid is intended to achieve price stability in


title: Case C-369/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Criminal proceedings against N.F. Gielen and Others

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/31

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) lodged on 1 July 2013 — Criminal proceedings against N.F. Gielen and Others
   (Case C-369/13)
   2013/C 260/57
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Rechtbank Oost-Brabant 's-Hertogenbosch

      Parties to the main proceedings

   N.F. Gielen, M.M.J. Geerings, F.A.C. Pruijmboom, A.A. Pruijmboom

      Questions referred

               1(a)

               Can the chemical substance alpha-phenylacetoacetonitrile (CAS No 4468-48-8; further referred to as ‘APAAN’) be equated with the scheduled substance 1-phenyl-2-propanone (CAS No 103-79-7; further referred to as ‘BMK’)? In particular, the Rechtbank seeks clarification as to whether the Dutch term ‘bevatten’, the English term ‘containing’ and the French term ‘contenant’ should be interpreted as meaning that the substance BMK must, as such, already be present in the substance APAAN.
               If Question 1(a) is answered in the negative, the Rechtbank wishes to submit the following supplementary questions to the Court of Justice under 1:

               1(b)

               Must APAAN be regarded, or must it not be regarded, as [one of the] ‘stoffen … die zodanig zijn vermengd dat genoemde stoffen niet gemakkelijk met eenvoudige of economisch rendabele middelen kunnen worden gebruikt of geëxtraheerd’, ‘[a substance] that [is] compounded in such a way that [it] cannot be easily used or extracted by readily applicable or economically viable means’ and ‘[une autre préparation] contenant des substances classifiées qui sont composées de manière telle que ces substances ne peuvent pas être facilement utilisées, ni extraites par des moyens aisés à mettre en oeuvre ou économiquement viables’? It appears from Annex 3 that, in the view of the police, a relatively straightforward, perhaps even simple, conversion process is involved.

               1(c)

               In answering Question 1(b), more particularly with regard to the use of ‘economisch rendabele middelen/economically viable means/[moyens] économiquement [viables]’, is it significant that in the conversion of APAAN to BMK — albeit by illegal means — very substantial amounts of money (can) apparently be made when the further processing of APAAN to BMK and/or amphetamine is successful and/or in the case of the (illegal) trade in the BMK obtained from APAAN?

               2.

               The term ‘operator’ is defined in Article 2(d) of Regulation No 273/2004 (1) and in Article 2(f) of Regulation No 111/2005. (2) In answering the following question, the Rechtbank requests that the Court of Justice proceed on the basis that what is under discussion here is a scheduled substance within the meaning of Article 2(a) or an equivalent substance within the terms of ‘Annex I: Scheduled substances within the meaning of Article 2(a)’ of the Regulations.

         Should that term ‘operator also’ be understood to refer to a natural person who, whether or not with (an)other legal person(s) and/or natural person(s), (intentionally) has a scheduled substance in his possession without a licence, without there being any further suspicious circumstances?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 273/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 on drug precursors (OJ 2004 L 47, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 111/2005 of 22 December 2004 laying down rules for the monitoring of trade between the Community and third countries in drug precursors (OJ 2005 L 22, p. 1).


title: Case T-295/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014  — Germany v Commission (State aid — Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services — Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity — Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market — Advantage — Service of general economic interest — Compensation relating to a public service obligation — Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition — Need for aid — Subsidiarity — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               1.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 292/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 July 2014 — Germany v Commission
   (Case T-295/12) (1)

   ((State aid - Animal carcass and slaughter waste disposal services - Maintaining epidemic reserve capacity - Decision declaring aid to be incompatible with the internal market - Advantage - Service of general economic interest - Compensation relating to a public service obligation - Effect on trade between Member States and distortion of competition - Need for aid - Subsidiarity - Duty to state reasons))
   2014/C 292/42
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze and J. Möller, Agents, assisted by T. Lübbig and M. Klasse, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Egerer and T. Maxian Rusche, Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of Commission Decision 2012/485/EU of 25 April 2012 on State aid SA.25051 (C 19/10) (ex NN 23/10) granted by Germany to the Zweckverband Tierkörperbeseitigung in Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Rheingau-Taunus-Kreis and Landkreis Limburg-Weilburg (OJ 2012 L 236, p. 1).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012.


title: Case C-450/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanzhof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair Engineering Services Limited

text:
22.3.2003            EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 70/1
                                                                  I
                                                           (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                       COURT OF JUSTICE
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-              in the case of Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber
hof by order of that Court of 4 September 2002 in the                on the following questions:
case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair
                 Engineering Services Limited                        1.     Is Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC (1) to be inter-
                                                                            preted as precluding a Member State from making the
                       (Case C-450/02)                                      organisation of gambling subject to value added tax if it
                                                                            is exempt when organised by a licensed public casino?
                        (2003/C 70/01)
                                                                     2.     Does Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/388/EEC prohibit a
                                                                            Member State from making the operation of a gaming
                                                                            machine subject to value added tax if the operation of a
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                      gaming machine by a licensed public casino is exempt, or
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                        must the game of chance machines operated outside
(Federal Finance Court) of 4 September 2002, received at the                casinos also be comparable for that purpose in essential
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling                respects, for example as regards the maximum stake and
in the case of Finanzamt Kassel-Goethestraße against Qualitair              the maximum winnings, with the gaming machines in
Engineering Services Limited on the following question:                     the casinos?
                                                                     3.     Is the installer of the machine permitted to rely on the
Does the fact that a national employer but not a foreign hirer
of labour is exempt from the obligation to deduct income tax                exemption laid down in Article 13B(f) of Directive 77/
                                                                            388/EEC?
at source where a double taxation treaty provides that the
salary paid is to be exempt from income tax constitute an
infringement of Article 49 EC?                                       (1 ) OJ L 145 of 13.06.1977, p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-
hof by order of that Court of 6 November in the case of              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
      Finanzamt Gladbeck against Edith Linneweber                    gericht by order of that Court of 30 October 2002 in the
                                                                         case of Karin Bautz against AOK Baden-Württemberg
                       (Case C-453/02)
                                                                                (Case C-454/02)
                        (2003/C 70/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 70/03)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof
(Federal Finance Court) of 6 November 2002, received at the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Court Registry on 13 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling         European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht


title: Case C-128/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, by order of that court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Johann Kappel v Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter

text:
C 188/14              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       3.7.1999
2. order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster
                                                                      Gerichtshof (Supreme Court), Austria, by order of that
                                                                      court of 30 March 1999 in the case of Johann Kappel v
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                 Pensionsversicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter
The Member States are required by the binding character of                                     (Case C-128/99)
the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of the EC
Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives
into national law before the expiry of the period laid down for                                (1999/C 188/32)
that purpose and to communicate those measures immediately
to the Commission. That period expired on 30 June 1996
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the Oberster Gerichtsh-
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
                                                                      of (Supreme Court), Austria, of 30 March 1999, which was
into national law.
                                                                      received at the Court Registry on 15 April 1999, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Kappel v Pensionsver-
(1) OJ No L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 10.                                   sicherungsanstalt der Arbeiter, on the following questions:
                                                                      1. Is Article 7(1)(a) of Directive 79/7/EEC (1) to be interpreted
                                                                           as allowing Member States to determine different pension-
                                                                           able ages only for pension rights which are granted
                                                                           exclusively on the basis of the risk of old age, or is that
                                                                           derogation applicable also to pension rights which are
                                                                           granted only from a specified age but in addition are
Appeal brought on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom of                          granted only on account of invalidity (reduced capacity for
Sweden against the judgment delivered on 28 January                        work)?
1999 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities in Case T-264/97
between D, supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and                    2. Is Article 7(1)(a) and (2) of Directive 79/7/EEC to be
              the Council of the European Union                            interpreted as allowing a Member State to alter a previously
                                                                           existing identical provision on pensionable age (in this case
                                                                           completion of the 55th year for men and women) after the
                       (Case C-125/99 P)                                   end of the transposition period, in such a way that a
                                                                           different pensionable age for men and women (in this case
                        (1999/C 188/31)                                    completion of the 57th year for men and the 55th year for
                                                                           women) is now determined?
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 28 January 1999
by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
the European Communities in Case T-264/97 between D,                  (1) OJ 1979 L 6, p. 24.
supported by the Kingdom of Sweden, and the Council of the
European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Kingdom
of Sweden, represented by Lotty Nordling, Legal Adviser, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Swedish Embassy,
2 Rue Heinrich Heine.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                           Action brought on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic
                                                                      of Germany against the Commission of the European
— set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and                                     Communities
    declare void the decision of the Council refusing to grant
    the benefits claimed by D;
                                                                                (Case C-129/99)
— order the Council to reimburse the costs incurred by
    Sweden in the proceedings before the Court of Justice.
                                                                                (1999/C 188/33)
Pleas in law and main arguments                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                      ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Disregard of Article 1 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, in      Communities on 15 April 1999 by the Federal Republic of
that a meaning has been applied to the expressions ‘married’          Germany, represented by Wolf-Dieter Plessing and Claus-
and ‘spouse’ which does not take into account the family              Dieter Quassowski, Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Postfach
situation and civil status of officials under the national            13 08, D-53003 Bonn.
legislation applicable to them, and inasmuch as officials living
in a situation of registered partnership are not treated in the
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
same way as married officials.
                                                                      •    annul the Commission Decision of 3 February 1999 —
                                                                           C(99)209 final — on the clearance of the accounts


title: Case T-570/10 RENV: Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015  — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf ( representing a wolf’s head ) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head — Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 96/10

         Judgment of the General Court of 5 February 2015 — Environmental Manufacturing v OHIM — Wolf (representing a wolf’s head)
   (Case T-570/10 RENV) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier national and international figurative marks WOLF Jardin and Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2015/C 096/11)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Atkins, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court, being: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, avocat)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing LLP.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 6 October 2010 (Case R 425/2010-2);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing LLP before the General Court and the Court of Justice;

               3.

               Orders Société Elmar Wolf to bear its own costs before the General Court and the Court of Justice, as well as half of those incurred by Environmental Manufacturing before the General Court and the Court of Justice.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.


title: Case C-302/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils Laurin Effing

text:
C 305/8                     EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          7.12.2002
                        ORDER OF THE COURT                                                           ORDER OF THE COURT
                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                           of 14 October 2002
                                                                                of 8 October 2002
in Case C-158/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Circuit Court, County of Cork): Catherine Withers v
                                                                                in Case C-190/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland
                                                                                the Giudice di pace de Genova-Voltri): Viacom Outdoor
                                  (MIBI) (1)
                                                                                Srl v Giotto Immobilier SARL ( 1)
(Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Answer
which may be clearly deduced from existing case-law —                                 (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Inadmissibility)
Approximation of laws — Directives 72/166/EEC and 84/
5/EEC — Compulsory insurance against civil liability in                                                    (2002/C 305/12)
    respect of motor vehicles — Injury caused to passengers)
                              (2002/C 305/11)                                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
                       (Language of the case: English)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                       in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                In Case C-190/02: Reference to the Court, under Article 234
In Case C-158/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                                EC, by the Giudice di Pace of Genoa-Voltri (Italy) for a
by the Circuit Court, County of Cork (Ireland), for a preliminary
                                                                                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                                court between Viacom Outdoor Srl and Giotto Immobilier
Catherine Withers and Samantha Delaney, Motor Insurers
                                                                                SARL, on the interpretation of Articles 2 EC; 3(1)(a), (b) and
Bureau of Ireland (MIBI), on the interpretation of Council Direc-
                                                                                (c) EC; 23 EC; 27(a), (b) and (d) EC; 31(1) and (3) EC; 49 EC;
tive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the
                                                                                50 EC; 81 EC; 82 EC; 86 EC and 87 EC, the Court
laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil
                                                                                (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the
liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the
                                                                                Chamber, P. Jann and A. Rosas (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber,
enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability
                                                                                Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has made an order on
(OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360), and of Second
                                                                                8 October 2002, the operative part of which is as follows:
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor                 The reference for a preliminary ruling submitted by the Giudice di
vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17), the Court (First Chamber), compo-                 Pace of Genoa-Voltri by order of 9 April 2002 is inadmissible.
sed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann(Rapporte-
ur) and A. Rosas, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass,
Registrar, having informed the court of referral that the Court                  (1 ) OJ C 169 of 13.7.2002.
proposed to give its decision by reasoned order in accordance
with Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure, having invited the
persons referred to in Article 20 of the EC Statute of the Court
of Justice to submit any observations which they might wish to
make in that regard, has made an order on 14 October 2002,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approxi-                    Gerichtshof (Republic of Austria) by order of that Court
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against            of 11 July 2002 in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforce-                                 Laurin Effing
ment of the obligation to insure against such liability, and Second
Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approxi-
                                                                                (Case C-302/02)
mation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against
civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles are to be interpreted
as meaning that theydo not precludea Member Statefrom maintaining                                          (2002/C 305/13)
national legislation which does not require compulsory insurance
against civil liability arising from the use of motor vehicles to cover
personal injuries to passengers carried in a part of the vehicle other than
a large public service vehicle, unless that part of the vehicle was designed     Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
and constructed with seating accommodation for passengers.                       European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                                (Republic of Austria) (Supreme Court of Justice) of 11 July
                                                                                2002, received at the Court Registry on 26 August 2002, for
( 1) OJ C 186 of 30.6.2001.
                                                                                a preliminary ruling in the matter of the care of the minor Nils
                                                                                Laurin Effing on the following question:
 ---pagebreak--- 7.12.2002               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 305/9
Is Article 12 EC, in conjunction with Article 3 of Regulation            20 291 540 euros from the amount of aid declared by the
EEC No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 ( 1) on the                Netherlands to the EAGGF in connection with the special
application of social security schemes to employed persons               market support measures relating to classical swine fever in
and their families moving within the Community, to be                    the Netherlands in 1997 and 1998, comprising in particular:
interpreted as precluding a national rule that discriminates
against a Community citizen in receipt of advances on
maintenance payments, where the father liable for maintaining
that citizen is serving a criminal sentence in his Member State          —    a deduction of 11 148 318,18 euros on account of the
of origin (i.e. not in Austria); and, where the child of a German             fact that the Netherlands, by failing correctly to apply the
national is resident in Austria, does denying that child                      denaturing provisions, allegedly impaired the application
entitlement to maintenance payments because his father is                     of the monitoring rules and thereby increased the risk of
serving a criminal sentence, which was handed down in                         evasion of the applicable legislation (flat-rate correction
Austria, in his Member State of origin (and not in Austria)                   of 5 %): even if it is accepted that, when carrying out the
constitute discrimination against that child?                                 denaturing of (parts of) pigs pursuant to Annex III to
                                                                              Regulation (EC) No 413/97 (1), the authorities failed to
                                                                              do so in the correct order, it cannot be maintained that,
( 1) OJ L 149 [1971], p. 2.                                                   in such denaturing, the objectives of Annex III (namely to
                                                                              ensure that (parts of) pigs are slaughtered and destroyed
                                                                              instead of coming back onto the market) were dis-
                                                                              regarded;
                                                                         —    a deduction of 6 427 370,45 euros on account of the
                                                                              fact that the Netherlands authorities allegedly miscon-
Action brought on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of                         strued and misapplied the term ‘batch’ within the meaning
the Netherlands against the Commission of the European                        of Regulation (EC) No 413/97: having regard to the
                            Communities                                       wording of that regulation, to the way in which the term
                                                                              ‘batch’ in comparable legislation has been interpreted in
                          (Case C-318/02)                                     the past and to the fact that the interpretation of that
                                                                              term advocated by the Commission (which draws a
                                                                              distinction between different categories of piglets) has
                          (2002/C 305/14)                                     proved unworkable in practice, the Netherlands auth-
                                                                              orities did not misconstrue or misapply the term ‘batch’.
                                                                              In the alternative, the Netherlands Government pleads
                                                                              that the calculation carried out by the Commission to
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                     determine the amount of the reduction is incorrect in
ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  law;
Communities on 12 September 2002 by the Kingdom of the
Netherlands, represented by H.G. Sevenster and N. Bel, acting
as Agents, with an address for service in The Hague.
                                                                         —    as regards the deduction of 2 750 070,91 euros on
                                                                              account of the fact that the Netherlands authorities
The Kingdom of the Netherlands claims that the Court should:                  allegedly failed generally to comply with the checking
                                                                              system and committed other administrative faults (flat-
(1) annul the Commission’s decision No C(2002) 2281 def.                      rate correction of 2 %): the discrepancies established by
      of 26 June 2002 excluding from Community financing                      the Commission between the number of pigs needing,
      certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under                 according to individual veterinary surgeons, to be
      the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural                      removed for reasons of wellbeing and the number actually
      Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), in so far as                       removed within the period of two days do not in any way
      that decision concerns the exclusion from Community                     indicate that the numbers of pigs to be removed, as
      financing of expenditure incurred by the Netherlands                    declared by the individual veterinary surgeons, were
      under the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee                  incorrect. As a result of the long duration of the
      Fund in the financial years 1997 and 1998;                              crisis, virtually all the pigs from the affected areas were
                                                                              ultimately removed and destroyed. Consequently, even if,
                                                                              and in so far as, it is to be accepted that, in some cases,
(2) order the Commission to pay the costs.                                    the declarations of the individual veterinary surgeons
                                                                              were not well-founded, those declarations did not in
                                                                              any way entail any financial prejudice or risk for the
                                                                              Community budget. As regards the export of carcasses to
Pleas in law and main arguments                                               Germany, the Netherlands Government argues that the
                                                                              checking and monitoring of shipments transported from
The Netherlands Government considers that the decision is                     the Netherlands to the German destruction plants guaran-
unlawful, or at least that it is based on an incorrect determi-               teed that the (parts of) pigs were not unlawfully with-
nation of the facts, inasmuch as it deducts the sum of                        drawn in order to be placed back on the market. The


title: Case C-44/14: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament, Council of the European Union (Actions for annulment — Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 — Crossing of the external borders — Eurosur system — Development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis — Participation — Cooperation with Ireland and the United Kingdom — Validity)

text:
               3.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 363/8

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2015 — Kingdom of Spain v European Parliament, Council of the European Union
   (Case C-44/14) (1)

   ((Actions for annulment - Regulation (EU) No 1052/2013 - Crossing of the external borders - Eurosur system - Development of the provisions of the Schengen acquis - Participation - Cooperation with Ireland and the United Kingdom - Validity))
   (2015/C 363/09)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, acting as Agent)

      Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: D. Moore, S. Alonso de Leon and A. Pospíšilová Padowska, acting as Agents), Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Chavrier, F. Florindo Gijón, M.-M. Joséphidès and P. Plaza García, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendants: Ireland (represented by: E. Creedon, G. Hodge and A. Joyce, acting as Agents, and G. Gilmore, Barrister), United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: L. Christie, acting as Agent, and J. Holmes, Barrister), European Commission (represented by: J. Baquero Cruz and G. Wils, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1)

               Dismisses the action;

               2)

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs;

               3)

               Orders Ireland, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 71, 8.3.2014.


title: Case C-379/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Amurta S.G.P.S v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst (Articles 56 EC to 58 EC — Free movement of capital — National tax legislation providing for exemption of shareholdings from corporation tax — Taxation of dividends — Withholding tax — Exemption from withholding tax — Application to companies receiving dividends with a seat or permanent establishment in the Member State granting the exemption and whose shareholdings benefit from exemption from corporation tax — Refusal to apply the exemption from withholding tax to dividends distributed to a recipient company not having a seat or a permanent establishment in that Member State)

text:
               22.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 315/8

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Netherlands) — Amurta S.G.P.S v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
   (Case C-379/05) (1)

   (Articles 56 EC to 58 EC - Free movement of capital - National tax legislation providing for exemption of shareholdings from corporation tax - Taxation of dividends - Withholding tax - Exemption from withholding tax - Application to companies receiving dividends with a seat or permanent establishment in the Member State granting the exemption and whose shareholdings benefit from exemption from corporation tax - Refusal to apply the exemption from withholding tax to dividends distributed to a recipient company not having a seat or a permanent establishment in that Member State)
   (2007/C 315/12)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Pays-Bas
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Amurta S.G.P.S.

      Defendant: Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst
   Re:
   Preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te Amsterdam — Interpretation of Articles 56 EC, 57 EC and 58 EC — Corporation tax — Exemption from tax in the case of dividends paid by a company established in the national territory to a company also established in that territory — Refusal to grant that exemption in the case of dividends paid by a company established in the national territory to a company established in the territory of another Member State — Relevance of the existence, in that other Member State, of an equivalent exemption from taxation of dividends in favour of the company established in that State
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 56 EC and 58 EC preclude legislation of a Member State which, where the minimum threshold for the parent company's shareholdings in the share capital of the subsidiary set out in Article 5(1) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent companies and subsidiaries of different Member States is not reached, provides for a withholding tax on dividends distributed by a company established in that Member State to a company established in another Member State, while exempting from that tax the dividends paid to a company liable to corporation tax in the first Member State or which has a permanent establishment in that Member State which owns the shares in the company making the distribution.

               2.

               A Member State may not rely on the existence of a full tax credit granted unilaterally by another Member State to a recipient company established in the latter Member State in order to escape the obligation to prevent economic double taxation of dividends resulting from the exercise of its power to tax in a situation where the first Member State prevents economic double taxation of dividends distributed to companies established in its territory. Where a Member State relies on a convention for the avoidance of double taxation concluded with another Member State, it is for the national court to establish whether account should be taken, in the main proceedings, of that convention, and, if so, to determine whether it enables the effects of the restriction on the free movement of capital to be neutralised.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-319/09 P: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission (Appeals — State aid — Aid granted to public utilities — Tax exemptions — Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market — Action for annulment — Admissibility — Standing — Legal interest — Article 87 EC — Concept of ‘aid’ — Article 88 EC — Concept of ‘new aid’ — Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 — Articles 1 and 14 — Lawfulness of a recovery order — Duty to state reasons)

text:
               18.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 49/4

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 December 2011 — ACEA SpA v Iride Spa, formerly AEM SpA, European Commission
   (Case C-319/09 P) (1)

   (Appeals - State aid - Aid granted to public utilities - Tax exemptions - Decision declaring the aid scheme incompatible with the common market - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Standing - Legal interest - Article 87 EC - Concept of ‘aid’ - Article 88 EC - Concept of ‘new aid’ - Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 - Articles 1 and 14 - Lawfulness of a recovery order - Duty to state reasons)
   2012/C 49/06
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: ACEA SpA (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, A. Giardina and T. Ubaldi, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: E. Righini, V. Di Bucci and D. Grespan, Agents), Iride SpA, formerly AEM Spa (represented by: L. Radicati di Brozolo, M. Merola, T. Ubaldi and A. Santa Maria, avvocati)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (now the General Court) (Eighth Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 June 2009 in Case T-297/02 ACEA v Commission by which the General Court dismissed the action brought for annulment of Articles 2 and 3 of Commission Decision 2003/193/EC of 5 June 2002 on State aid granted by Italy in the form of tax exemptions and subsidised loans to public utilities with a majority public capital holding (OJ 2003 L 77, p. 21).

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the main appeal and the cross-appeal.

               2.

               Orders ACEA SpA to pay the costs of the main appeal.

               3.

               Orders the European Commission to pay the costs of the cross-appeal.

               4.

               Orders Iride SpA to pay its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case T-597/11 P: Order of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Michail v Commission (Appeal — Civil Service — Officials — Request for assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Psychological harassment — Appeal clearly unfounded)

text:
               7.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 359/12

         Order of the General Court of 8 October 2013 — Michail v Commission
   (Case T-597/11 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Civil Service - Officials - Request for assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Psychological harassment - Appeal clearly unfounded)
   2013/C 359/21
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: Christos Michail (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: C. Meïdanis, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and J. Baquero, acting as Agents, assisted by E. Bourtzalas and E. Antypas, lawyers)

      Re:

   Appeal brought against the judgment of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 September 2011 in case F-100/09 Michail v Commission, not yet published in the ECR, and seeking that that judgment be set aside.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed;

               2.

               Christos Michail will bear his own costs and will pay those incurred by the European Commission on the appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 39, 11.2.2012.


title: Case C-550/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt

text:
               21.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 69/19

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 11 December 2008 — British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH v Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt
   (Case C-550/08)
   (2009/C 69/34)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: British American Tobacco (Germany) GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Schweinfurt
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1) be interpreted as meaning that non-Community goods subject to excise duty which have been placed under an inward processing procedure within the terms of Article 84(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) are to be deemed to be subject to duty-suspension arrangements even if they are produced, under an inward processing procedure, from goods which are not subject to excise duty only after the importation of those goods and therefore, in accordance with the 15th recital in the preamble to Directive 92/12/EEC, when they are being moved there is no need for the accompanying document referred to in Article 18(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC to be used?

               2.

               If the first question is to be answered in the negative:
               Must Article 15(4) of Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that proof that the consignee has taken delivery of the goods may also be provided otherwise than by means of the accompanying document referred to in Article 18 of Directive 92/12/EEC?

      (1)  OJ 1992 L 76, p. 1.


title: Case F-18/09: Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Merhzaoui v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/46

         Action brought on 2 March 2009 — Merhzaoui v Council
   (Case F-18/09)
   2009/C 113/96
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mohamed Merhzaoui (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision to assign the applicant to the career stream AST 1-7. Secondly, annulment of the decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision to assign the applicant, with effect from 1 May 2006, to the career stream AST 1-7.

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote him to grade AST 2 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade;

               —

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


title: Case T-371/14: Action brought on 26 May 2014 — NICO v Council

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/34

         Action brought on 26 May 2014 — NICO v Council
   (Case T-371/14)
   2014/C 261/59
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Naftiran Intertrade Co. (NICO) Sàrl (Pully, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Grayston, Solicitor, P. Gjørtler, G. Pandey and D. Rovetta, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Council decision contained in the letter of 14 March 2014, addressed to the lawyers of the applicant, concerning review of the list of designated persons and entities in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as amended by Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012, and in Annex IX to Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 945/2012 of 15 October 2012, in so far as the contested decision constitutes a refusal to remove the applicant from the list of persons and entities made subject to the restrictive measures;

               —

               join the present proceedings with the case T-6/13 in accordance with Article 50(1) of the Rules of Procedure;

               —

               order the Council to bear the costs of the present proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law, alleging that the statement of grounds was insufficient and that the Council committed a manifest error of assessment.
   The applicant argues that it is a not a subsidiary of Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited, as this company no longer exists in Jersey, and in any case the Council has not substantiated that even if the applicant were a subsidiary of Naftiran Intertrade Company (NICO) Limited, this would entail an economic benefit for the Iranian State that would be contrary to the objective pursued by the contested measures.