title: Case C-296/12: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Freedom to provide services — Free movement of capital — Income tax — Contributions paid to a savings pension — Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State — Coherence of the tax system — Efficacy of fiscal supervision)

text:
               29.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 93/7

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 23 January 2014 — European Commission v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-296/12) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Freedom to provide services - Free movement of capital - Income tax - Contributions paid to a savings pension - Tax reduction solely in respect of payments to institutions or funds established in that Member State - Coherence of the tax system - Efficacy of fiscal supervision)
   2014/C 93/10
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Articles 56 TFEU and 63 TFEU — Payments to a savings pension — Tax reduction — Payments made definitively in Belgium.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining the tax reduction in respect of contributions paid to a savings pension in so far as that reduction is applicable only in respect of payments to institutions and funds established in Belgium, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56 TFEU.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 273, 8.9.2012


title: Case F-21/09: Action brought on 9 March 2009 — De Benedetti-Dagnoni v Council

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/47

         Action brought on 9 March 2009 — De Benedetti-Dagnoni v Council
   (Case F-21/09)
   2009/C 113/99
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Rosangela De Benedetti-Dagnoni (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

   Annulment of the decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 in the 2008 promotion procedure and, so far as necessary, of the decisions to promote less deserving officials to that grade.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the appointing authority’s decision not to promote the applicant to grade AST 7 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-313/00: Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra against Commission of the European Communities

text:
9.12.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 355/37
—     Infringement of Article 10 of Annex VII to the Staff               —     failure to fulfil the duty to have regard for the welfare of
      Regulations. The applicant was entitled to the daily                     officials;
      subsistence allowance laid down by that provision, since
      she was required to change her place of residence to               —     infringement of Community rules on free movement for
      Luxembourg for the sole purpose of being able to carry                   workers;
      out the work for which she was employed, whereas the
      centre of her interests remained in Portugal.                      —     failure to fulfil the obligation to provide reasons.
                                                                         Action brought on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli SpA
Action brought on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd Feenstra                       against Commission of the European Communities
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-317/00)
                         (Case T-313/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/79)
                         (2000/C 355/78)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                         An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the               European Communities on 10 October 2000 by AgipPetroli
European Communities on 29 September 2000 by Sjoerd                      SpA, represented by Mario Siragusa of the Rome Bar, Matteo
Feenstra, residing in Brussels, represented by Georges Vander-           Beretta, of the Bergamo Bar, Francesca Maria Moretti, of the
sanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar.                              Venice Bar, and Eduardo De Simone, of the Naples Bar, with
                                                                         an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                         Elvinger Hoss & Prussen, 2 Place Winston Churchill.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision taken by the appointing authority on
      27 September 1999 grading the applicant in Grade A 7,              —     annul the contested decision in whole or in part in so far
      step 3;                                                                  as it concerns the applicant;
—     order the defendant to pay damages provisionally asses-            —     order the Commission to pay all the costs.
      sed, ex aequo et bono, at 1 euro;
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                              Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         On 9 February 2000, the European Commission adopted a
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          decision whereby it declared the acquisition of Elf Aquitaine
                                                                         S.A. by Totalfina compatible with the common market and
                                                                         with the Agreement on the European Economic Area. That
The applicant, who was a successful candidate in competition             decision was subject to the compliance by Totalfina with a
COM/A/764, contests the appointing authority’s decision to               number of undertakings, including the undertaking to sell
grade him, on establishment, at Grade A 7, step 3.                       70 petrol stations located on the French motorway network,
                                                                         specifically set out in a table appended to the decision.
In support of his claims, the applicant alleges:
                                                                         The present case has been brought against the decision of the
—     manifest error of assessment;                                      Commission of 13 September 2000 (SG (2000) D/106729)
                                                                         rejecting the plan submitted by Totalfina S.A., with the purpose
                                                                         of implementing the abovementioned decision of 9 February
—     infringement of Articles 31(2) and 32 of the Staff                 2000 Totalfina/Elf (COMP/M. 1628). That decision rejected
      Regulations;                                                       the plan put forward on account of the fact that two
                                                                         prospective purchasers, one of which was the applicant itself,
—     breach of the principle of non-discrimination;                     were not in a position to compete effectively against Totalfina.


title: Case C-263/13 P: Appeal brought on 14 May 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-65/10, T-113/10 and T-138/10 Spain v Commission

text:
               20.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 207/28

         Appeal brought on 14 May 2013 by the Kingdom of Spain against the judgment of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 26 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-65/10, T-113/10 and T-138/10 Spain v Commission
   (Case C-263/13 P)
   2013/C 207/45
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Rubio González, agent)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the present appeal is well founded and set aside the judgment of the General Court of 26 February 2013 in Joined Cases T-65/10, T-113/10 and T-138/10 Spain v Commission;

               —

               Annul Commission Decisions C(2009) 9270 of 30 November 2009, C(2009) 10678 of 23 December 2009, and C(2010) 337 of 28 January 2010 reducing the aid from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) to Operational Programme ‘Andalucía’, falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999), under Commission Decision C(94) 3456 of 9 December 1994, Operational Programme ‘País Vasco’, falling within Objective 2 (1997-1999), under Commission Decision C(1998) 121 of 5 February 1998, and to Operational Programme ‘Comunidad Valenciana’, falling within Objective 1 (1994-1999), under Commission Decision C(1994) 3043/6 of 25 November 1994, respectively;

               —

               Order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

               —

                     Error of law in holding Article 24(2) of Regulation 4253/88

                   (1)

                     to be the legal basis for applying financial corrections based on an extrapolation.
                   This provision is not a legal basis for applying financial corrections by extrapolation in the event of systematic irregularities, since this power has not been conferred on the Commission.

               —

                     Error of law in the review of the reliability, consistency, relevance and appropriateness of the extrapolation applied by the Commission
                  . The review by the General Court with respect to the representativeness of the sample used for the application of the financial correction by extrapolation was not carried out in accordance with the Tetra Laval
                   (2) case-law.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988 laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the activities of the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of the European Investment Bank and other existing financial instruments

      OJ 1988 L 374, p. 1

      (2)  Judgment of 15 February 2005 in Case C-12/03 P Commission v Tetra Laval [2005] ECR I-987, paragraph 39


title: Case T-23/14: Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council (Action for annulment — Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union — Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country — Lack of individual concern — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               19.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/39

      Order of the General Court of 11 November 2014 — Bos and Others v Parliament and Council
      (Case T-23/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - Reform of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union - Substantial reduction in the number of days of annual leave for officials and other servants serving in a third country - Lack of individual concern - Manifest inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 016/62)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: Mark Bos (Ankara, Turkey); Estelle Kadouch (Jerusalem, Israel); Siegfried Krahl (Lago Sul, Brazil); and Eric Lunel (Dakar, Senegal) (represented by: F. Krenc, lawyer)

         Defendants: European Parliament (represented by: L. Visaggio and E. Taneva, acting as Agents); and Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bauer and A. Bisch, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulment brought under Article 263 TFEU against point 70 of Article 1 of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union (OJ 2013 L 287, p. 15), in so far as it amends Annex X to Regulation No 31 (EEC), 11 (EAEC), laying down the Staff Regulations of Officials and the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 1962, 45, p. 1385).

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Mark Bos, Estelle Kadouch, Siegfried Krahl and Eric Lunel shall bear their own costs and pay those incurred by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union.

                  3.

                  There is no need to give a ruling on the application for leave to intervene by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 112, 14.4.2014.


title: Case C-8/07: Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/24

         Order of the President of the Fifth Chamber of the Court of 13 February 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium
   (Case C-8/07) (1)

   (2008/C 92/47)

      Language of the case: Dutch

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Case C-216/10 P: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 — Figurative mark A+ — Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark AirPlus International — Opposition rejected)

text:
               19.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/4

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 25 November 2010 — Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL
   (Case C-216/10 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Articles 8(1)(b) and (5), 73, 74 and 79 - Figurative mark A+ - Opposition by the proprietor of the Community word mark AirPlus International - Opposition rejected)
   2011/C 89/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH (represented by: R. Kunze, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent), Applus Servicios Technológicos SL

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 3 March 2010 in Case T-321/07 Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and Applus Servicios Tecnológicos by which that court dismissed an action brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘AirPlus International’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36 and 42 against Decision R 310/2006-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 June 2007 dismissing the appeal against the Opposition Division’s decision rejecting the opposition brought by the appellant against the application for registration of the figurative mark ‘A+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41 and 42

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Lufthansa AirPlus Servicekarten GmbH shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 179, 3.7.2010.


title: Case T-594/10 P: Appeal brought on 21 December 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 October 2010 in Case F-2/10, Marcuccio v Commission

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/33

         Appeal brought on 21 December 2010 by Luigi Marcuccio against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 6 October 2010 in Case F-2/10, Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case T-594/10 P)
   2011/C 55/59
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               In any event, set aside in its entirety and without exception the order under appeal.

               —

               Declare that the action at first instance, in relation to which the order under appeal was made, was perfectly admissible.

               —

               Allow in its entirety and without any exception whatsoever the relief sought by the appellant at first instance.

               —

               Order the Commission to reimburse the appellant in respect of all costs, disbursements and fees incurred by him in relation to both the proceedings at first instance and the present appeal proceedings.

               —

               In the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal, sitting in a different formation, for a fresh decision.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The present appeal is brought against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 6 October 2010. That order dismissed as partly manifestly inadmissible and partly unfounded an action directed against the Commission’s refusal of his request for 100 % reimbursement of medical expenses relating to the illness from which he suffers.
   In support of his appeal, the appellant submits that the findings concerning the object of the action and its admissibility were unlawful.
   The appellant also alleges incorrect and unreasonable interpretation and application of Articles 90 and 91 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of Civil Service Tribunal, a total failure to state reasons and failure to give a ruling on claim made by the appellant.


title: Case C-76/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Paul Vervloet and Others, Organisme voor de financiering van pensioenen Ogeo Fund, Gemeente Schaarbeek, Frédéric Ensch Famenne v Ministerraad; intervening parties: Arcofin CVBA and Others

text:
               26.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 171/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Grondwettelijk Hof (Belgium) lodged on 19 February 2015 — Paul Vervloet and Others, Organisme voor de financiering van pensioenen Ogeo Fund, Gemeente Schaarbeek, Frédéric Ensch Famenne v Ministerraad; intervening parties: Arcofin CVBA and Others
   (Case C-76/15)
   (2015/C 171/17)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Grondwettelijk Hof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Paul Vervloet, Marc De Wit, Edgard Timperman, Godelieve Van Braekel, Patrick Beckx, Marc De Schryver, Guy Deneire, Steve Van Hoof, Organisme voor de financiering van pensioenen Ogeo Fund, Gemeente Schaarbeek, Frédéric Ensch Famenne

      Defendant: Ministerraad

      Intervening parties: Arcofin CVBA, Arcopar CVBA, Arcoplus CVBA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Articles 2 and 3 of Directive 94/19/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on deposit-guarantee schemes, where appropriate read in conjunction with Articles 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2) and with the general principle of equality, be interpreted as meaning that:

                           (a)

                           they impose an obligation on the Member States to guarantee the shares of recognised cooperatives operating in the financial sector in the same way as deposits?

                           (b)

                           they preclude a Member State from entrusting to the body which is partially responsible for guaranteeing the deposits referred to in that directive the task of also guaranteeing, in an amount up to EUR 1 00  000, the value of the shares of the members, being natural persons, of a recognised cooperative operating in the financial sector?

               2.

               Is the European Commission Decision of 3 July 2014 (3)‘on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives’ compatible with Articles 107 TFEU and 296 TFEU in so far as it classifies the guarantee scheme which forms the subject of that decision as new State aid?

               3.

               In the event of a negative answer to the second question, must Article 107 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a scheme concerning the State guarantee granted to the members, being natural persons, of recognised cooperatives operating in the financial sector, within the meaning of Article 36/24(1)(1)(3) of the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the organic statute of the National Bank of Belgium, constitutes new State aid which must be notified to the European Commission?

               4.

               In the event of an affirmative answer to the second question, is that decision of the European Commission compatible with Article 108(3) TFEU if it is interpreted as holding that the State aid at issue was put into effect before 3 March 2011 or 1 April 2011 or on one or other of those dates, or, conversely, if it is interpreted as holding that the State aid at issue was put into effect at a later date?

               5.

               Must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting a measure, such as that contained in Article 36/24(1)(3) of the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the organic statute of the National Bank of Belgium, if that measure puts State aid into effect or constitutes State aid which has already been put into effect and that State aid has not yet been notified to the European Commission?

               6.

               Must Article 108(3) TFEU be interpreted as precluding a Member State from adopting, without prior notification to the European Commission, a measure, such as that contained in Article 36/24(1)(3) of the Law of 22 February 1998 establishing the organic statute of the National Bank of Belgium, if that measure constitutes State aid which has not yet been put into effect?

      (1)  OJ 1994 L 135, p. 5.

      (2)  OJ 2000 C 364, p. 1.

      (3)  Commission Decision 2014/686/EU of 3 July 2014 on State aid SA.33927 (12/C) (ex 11/NN) implemented by Belgium — Guarantee scheme protecting the shares of individual members of financial cooperatives (notified under document C(2014) 1021) (OJ 2014 L 284, p. 53).


title: Case C-52/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen (Germany) lodged on 4 February 2014 — Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG v Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung
   (Case C-52/14)
   2014/C 142/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Pfeifer & Langen GmbH & Co. KG

      Respondent: Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung

      Questions referred

               1.

               In respect of interruption of the limitation period, is the competent authority within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 (1) the authority which is responsible for the act relating to investigation or legal proceedings, irrespective of whether it had granted the financial resources? Must the act relating to investigation or legal proceedings be directed at the adoption of an administrative measure or penalty?

               2.

               Can the ‘person in question’ within the meaning of the third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 also be an employee of an undertaking who has been interviewed as a witness?

               3.

               Must ‘any [notified] act … relating to investigation or legal proceedings’ (third subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95) relate to specific errors in the assessment of sugar production (irregularities) by the sugar manufacturer which are normally assumed or determined only in the context of a duly conducted market supervision inspection? Can a final report concluding or evaluating the result of the inspection, in which no further questions on specific irregularities are asked, also be a notified ‘act … relating to investigation proceedings’?

               4.

               Does the occurrence of ‘repeated irregularities’ within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 require that the acts or omissions assessed as irregularities be closely linked in time in order to be regarded as a ‘repetition’? If so, are they no longer closely linked in time if, inter alia, the irregularity in the assessment of a sugar quantity occurs only once in a sugar marketing year and occurs again only in a following or subsequent sugar marketing year?

               5.

               Can the occurrence of repeated irregularities within the meaning of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be ended by the fact that the competent authority, while aware of the complexity of the facts, has not, or has not regularly or carefully, inspected the undertaking?

               6.

               When does the double limitation period of eight years under the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 begin in the case of continuous or repeated irregularities? Does this limitation period begin to run after any act regarded as an irregularity (first subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the regulation) or after the last repeated act (second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of the regulation)?

               7.

               Can the double limitation period of eight years under the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be interrupted by acts of the competent authority relating to investigation or legal proceedings?

               8.

               Where there are different irregularities affecting the assessment of subsidies, must the limitation periods to be calculated under Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 be determined separately in respect of each irregularity?

               9.

               Is the running of the double limitation period under the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 conditional on the authority’s awareness of the irregularity?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities’ financial interests (OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1).


title: Case C-493/09: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement — Free movement of capital — Foreign and national pension funds — Corporation tax — Dividends — Exemption — Difference in treatment)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/4

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 October 2011 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-493/09) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the EEA Agreement - Free movement of capital - Foreign and national pension funds - Corporation tax - Dividends - Exemption - Difference in treatment)
   2011/C 347/04
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and M. Afonso, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes and H. Ferreira, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Infringement of Article 63 TFEU and of Article 40 EEA — Restrictions on movements of capital — Foreign and national pension funds — Dividends — Taxation — Difference in treatment

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By reserving the benefit of the corporation tax exemption to pension funds resident in Portuguese territory alone, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 63 TFEU and Article 40 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic is to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


title: Case C-421/06: Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Judgment of the Court declaring a Community provision invalid — Obligations of the institutions — Animal health and public health requirements — Compound feedingstuffs for animals — Indication, on the label, of the percentages in weight of the raw materials present in the feedingstuff, with a tolerance of ± 15 % of the declared value — Prohibition on misleading the consumer)

text:
               8.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 64/13

         Order of the Court (Third Chamber) of 8 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl v Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   (Case C-421/06) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Judgment of the Court declaring a Community provision invalid - Obligations of the institutions - Animal health and public health requirements - Compound feedingstuffs for animals - Indication, on the label, of the percentages in weight of the raw materials present in the feedingstuff, with a tolerance of ± 15 % of the declared value - Prohibition on misleading the consumer)
   (2008/C 64/19)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Consiglio di Stato
   Parties

      Applicants: Fratelli Martini & C. SpA, Cargill Srl

      Defendants: Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, Ministero della Salute, Ministero delle Attività Produttive
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Effects of the judgment of the Court of Justice in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C 12/04 and C-194/04 (ABNA and Others) by which Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC (OJ 2002 L 63, p. 23) was declared partially invalid — Obligation for the institutions to adopt a new act
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               Article 1(4) of Directive 2002/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound feedingstuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC, which lays down an obligation to indicate, on the labels of compound feedingstuffs for animals, the percentages in weight of the raw materials of which the feedingstuff is composed with a tolerance of ± 15 % of the declared value as regards those percentages, must be interpreted as meaning that it does not contradict Articles 8 and 16 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 28 January 2002 laying down the general principles and requirements of food law, establishing the European Food Safety Authority and laying down procedures in matters of food safety, which are intended, inter alia, to prevent the labelling and presentation of feedingstuffs for animals from misleading the consumer.

               2.

               Since Article 1(1)(b) of Directive 2002/2 laid down an independent obligation bearing no relation to the obligations laid down by the other provisions of that directive, the Court's declaration, in its judgment of 6 December 2005 in Joined Cases C-453/03, C-11/04, C-12/04 and C-194/04 ABNA and Others, that that provision was invalid did not create a legal vacuum or a situation of inconsistency requiring the Community institutions to adopt the substantive amendments of Directive 2002/2.
               In any event, the invalidity of a Community provision results directly from the judgment of the Court declaring that invalidity and it is for the national authorities and courts of the Member States to draw the consequences from that declaration in their national legal order.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-113/15: Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission

text:
               11.5.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/33

         Action brought on 4 March 2015 — RFA International v Commission
   (Case T-113/15)
   (2015/C 155/39)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: RFA International, LP (Calgary, Canada) (represented by: B. Evtimov and M. Krestiyanova, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul, in whole or in part, Commission Implementing Decisions C(2014) 9805 final, C(2014) 9806 final, C(2014) 9807 final, C(2014) 9808 final, C(2014) 9811 final, C(2014) 9812 final and C(2014) 9816 final, of 18 December 2014, concerning applications for a refund of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of ferro-silicon originating in Russia;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Commission made an error in law, resulting from a breach and/or an erroneous interpretation of Article 2(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (1) and/or a manifest error of assessment in finding that a single economic entity is irrelevant, including for the purposes of judicial review, for the purposes of Article 2(9) of the Basic Regulation. The Applicant also challenges the consequential finding that a full deduction for all reported sales costs and profit, including export-related costs and a reasonable profit of an unrelated importer, from the constructed export price was warranted;

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(10) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (2) and a manifest error of assessment in the Commission’s deduction of the anti-dumping duties from the constructed export price. According to the Applicant, even by following the Commission’s methodology, the Commission should have found that the conditions of Article 11(10) were met at least as regards a part of the amounts applied for. The second plea also argues for a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic Regulation, resulting from the Commission’s methodology for assessing whether the duties are duly reflected in the resale price, which was different from the methodology used in the last investigation which led to the duty;

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging a breach of Article 11(9) of the Basic anti-dumping Regulation (3) and Article 18.3.1 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, which occurred when the Commission, for the purpose of determining constructed normal values, applied a new methodology and could not justify that methodology by any relevant change in circumstances.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.

      (3)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union, OJ L 343 of 22.12.2009.


title: Case T-159/10: Action brought on 9 April 2010 — Air France v OHIM (Representation of a parallelogram)

text:
               19.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 161/45

      Action brought on 9 April 2010 — Air France v OHIM (Representation of a parallelogram)
      (Case T-159/10)
      (2010/C 161/71)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Air France (Roissy Charles de Gaulle, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)

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

         Forms of order sought

                  —

                  Annulment of the decision of 27 January 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case 1018/2009-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 007576218 for the goods and services which are the subject of this action;

                  —

                  Grant registration of the application for Community figurative mark No 007576218 for all goods and services covered by it;

                  —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments

         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, representing the shape of a parallelogram, for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35 to 39 and 41 to 45 (Application No 7 576 218)

         Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application for registration

         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, as the mark applied for has the requisite minimum level of distinctiveness.


title: Case C-164/09: Action brought on 8 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/28

         Action brought on 8 May 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-164/09)
   2009/C 180/48
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Zadra and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Italian Republic

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of Directive 79/409/EEC, (1) since the Veneto Region has adopted and applies rules concerning authorisation to derogate from the system of protection for wild birds which fail to satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409;

               —

               Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission submits that the legislation adopted by the Veneto Region does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409.
   Law No 13 of 2005, in force at the time of expiry of the reasoned opinion, does not comply with the requirements laid down in Article 9 of Directive 79/409 in so far as:

               —

               it identifies generally and in the abstract, without imposing any temporal limits, the species and the numbers covered by the derogation;

               —

               the derogations for individual species of birds are provided for collectively on the basis of a general reference to all the circumstances listed in points (a) and (c) of Article 9, without appropriate explanations being given concerning the specific reasons;

               —

               it does not lay down the requirement that it must be ascertained that there is no other satisfactory solution, or that the individual derogation measures must specify the conditions of risk, the circumstances of place and those who are authorised to apply the derogations;

               —

               it allows the small numbers to be determined without an adequate scientific basis.

         The Commission submits that the measures adopted after the expiry of the period prescribed in the reasoned opinion not only fail to cure the defects already identified, but actually reproduce them in substance. The measures concerned are, inter alia, Decree No 140 of the President of the Regional Council of 20 June 2006, Decree No 230 of the President of the Regional Council of 18 October 2006, Regional Law No 24 of 16 August 2007, Decree No 167 of the President of the Regional Council of 4 September 2007, and Regional Law No 13 of 14 August 2008.

      (1)  Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1).


18.12.1999            EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 366/31
— that Article 60 of the Staff Regulations has been                     Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-320/94
     erroneously applied in that the aim of that provision is to                                  and Others (1)
     penalize the production of medical certificates issued
     purely to oblige the patient and not the infringement of a                                 (1999/C 366/67)
     duty of good faith. Since the defendant alleged that the
     applicant had infringed a duty of good faith, it was required
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
     to found its decision solely on Article 86 of the Staff
     Regulations instead of on Article 60.
                                                                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
The applicant submits finally that, by failing to comply with           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
the Staff Regulations and refusing to assist her in proceedings         Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-320/94,
against the medical officer, the defendant has infringed                T-323/94, T-324/94, T-332/94, T-333/94, T-344/94,
Article 24 of those Regulations so as to give rise to liability on      T-345/94 and T-351/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-320/94
its part.                                                               and Others: Klaus Harings and Others v Council of the
                                                                        European Union and Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 351 of 10.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93
                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/65)
                                                                        Removal from the register of Joined Cases T-363/94 and
                  (Language of the case: German)                                                    Others (1)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth                                       (1999/C 366/68)
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities has ordered the removal                                       (Language of the case: German)
of Cases T-85/93, T-87/93, T-126/93, T-130/93, T-35/94,
T-40/94, T-198/94, T-212/94, T-227/94, T-236/94,                        By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth
T-237/94, T-238/94, T-278/94, T-279/94, T-281/94,                       Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
T-283/94, T-284/94, T-349/94, T-350/94, T-357/94 and                    Communities has ordered the removal from the register of
T-360/94 from the list of Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others:              Joined Cases T-363/94 and Others: Benno and Hans Georg
Helmut Bösl and Others v Council of the European Union and              Theunissen and Others v Council of the European Union and
Commission of the European Communities.                                 Commission of the European Communities.
(1) OJ Nos C 178 of 18.7.1990, C 34 of 9.2.1991, C 90 of 26.3.1994,     (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, C 400 of 31.12.1994, C 54 of
    C 218 of 6.8.1994, C 304 of 29.10.1994 and C 370 of
                                                                            4.3.1995, C 74 of 25.3.1995 and C 119 of 13.5.1995.
    24.12.1994.
Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-85/93               Partial removal from the register in Joined Cases T-366/94
                          and Others (1)                                                          and Others (1)
                        (1999/C 366/66)                                                         (1999/C 366/69)
                  (Language of the case: German)                                         (Language of the cases: German)
By order of 29 September 1999 the President of the Fourth               By order of 29 September 1999, the President of the Fourth
Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
of the European Communities has ordered the removal of the              Communities has ordered the removal of Cases T-366/94,
names of the applicants Peter Dalhaus, Klaus Buck, Karl-Heinz           T-3/95, T-14/95, T-120/95 and T-124/95 from the list of
Rohler and Ludger Beckhoff from the list of applicants in Case          cases in Joined Cases T-366/94 and Others: Hilde Diekmeier
T-247/94 - Joined Cases T-85/93 and Others: Helmut Bösl and             and Others v Council of the European Union and Commission
Others v Council of the European Union and Commission of                of the European Communities.
the European Communities.
                                                                        (1) OJ No C 370 of 24.12.1994, No C 54 of 4.3.1995, No C 74 of
(1) OJ No C 233 of 20.8.1994.                                               25.3.1995, No C 174 of 8.7.1995 and No C 208 of 12.8.1995.


title: Case T-217/07: Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Las Palmeras v Council and Commission

text:
               8.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 211/34

         Action brought on 26 June 2007 — Las Palmeras v Council and Commission
   (Case T-217/07)
   (2007/C 211/67)
   Language of the proceedings: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Las Palmeras S. Coop. And. (Seville, Spain) (represented by: L. Ortiz Blanco, lawyer)

      Defendants: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought

               —

               to uphold the present action for damages, in accordance with Article 288 EC, and declare the applicant is entitled to be financially compensated by the Council and the Commission jointly and severally in the sum total of two hundred and eighty-eight thousand two hundred and thirty-eight euros (EUR 288 238);

               —

               to order the defendant institutions to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant in the present proceedings, a Spanish firm which gins raw cotton, seeks compensation for losses allegedly suffered as a result of the application, during the 2006/2007 marketing year, of Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (1), inserted by Article 1(20) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 (2). Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishes common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishes certain support schemes for farmers.
   In that regard it is noted that Chapter 10a of Title IV of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 was annulled by judgment of the Court of Justice on 7 September 2006 in Case C-310/04 Spain v Commission for breach of the principle of proportionality. That judgment, however, suspended the effects of the annulment until the adoption of a new regulation, so that the provisions in question continued to apply for the 2006/2007 marketing year.
   On the basis of two reports carried out by an economic consultancy the application reviews the loss suffered by the sector, since, as a consequence of applying the annulled provisions during the relevant marketing year a large drop occurred in the volume of raw cotton produced and, consequently in the production of industrially ginned cotton. Operation of the support scheme outlined in the relevant provisions results in a significant portion of the support (about 65 %) becoming completely unrelated to the production of cotton, so that the farmer continues to receive it, even though he is using his land for the production of other crops. Accordingly, the estimated profitability of using an area of one hectare to grow cotton becomes lower than the profitability of using it to grow other crops. That situation also meant that the operating revenues obtained by the ginning industry were reduced.
   The applicant claims that in the present case the requirements demanded by case-law to establish the extra-contractual liability of the Community are met.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 864/2004 of 29 April 2004 amending Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers, and adapting it by reason of the accession of the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia to the European Union (OJ L 161, 30.4.2004, p. 48).


title: Case T-329/11: Order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 — TME v Commission (Public service contracts — Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds — Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the applicant — Refusal of the Commission to open a financial adjustment procedure with respect to Romania — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               8.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 273/8

         Order of the General Court of 4 July 2012 — TME v Commission
   (Case T-329/11) (1)

   (Public service contracts - Call for tenders in relation to the rehabilitation of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant, jointly financed by the ISPA structural funds - Allegedly unlawful decision of the Romanian authorities to reject the tender submitted by the applicant - Refusal of the Commission to open a financial adjustment procedure with respect to Romania - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2012/C 273/13
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia (Milan, Italy) (represented by: C. Malinconico, S. Fidanzia and A. Gigliola, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Aresu and P. van Nuffel, Agents)

      Re:

   First, application for annulment of the Commission’s letter of 20 April 2011 concerning the complaint of TME SpA in respect of infringements of European Union law by Romania in the context of the project ‘Bucharest Wastewater Treatment Plant Rehabilitation: Stage I ISPA 2004/RO/16/P/PE/003-03’, inherent in the restructuring of the Bucharest wastewater treatment plant [D(2011)REGIO.B3/MAD] and, second, a claim for damages.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as being manifestly inadmissible.

               2.

               TME SpA — Termomeccanica Ecologia shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 252, 27.8.2011.


title: Case F-8/10: Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council

text:
               17.4.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 100/69

         Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Gheysens v Council
   (Case F-8/10)
   2010/C 100/102
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Johan Gheysens (Mechelen, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the Council’s decision not to extend the applicant’s contract and, as a result, to terminate his employment relationship with the Council.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decision not to extend the applicant’s contract beyond 30 September 2009 and the refusal to take any measure to regularise the administrative situation of the applicant, who has carried out permanent tasks at the institution for 16 years;

               —

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


title: Case C-347/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB) v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

text:
               5.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/15

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (Bulgaria) lodged on 21 June 2016 — Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB) v Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)
   (Case C-347/16)
   (2016/C 326/26)
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Referring court

   Administrativen sad Sofia-grad

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Balgarska energiyna borsa AD (BEB)

      Defendant: Komisia za energiyno i vodno regulirane (KEVR)

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does Article 9(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of Directive 2009/72/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC permit the same person to be the sole shareholder of the independent transmission system operator and of the company whose most important activities are the generation and transmission of electricity?

               2.

               Does Article 9(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC permit the same person directly or indirectly to exercise control over the independent transmission system operator and over an undertaking which generates and supplies electricity?

               3.

               Does Article 9(1)(c) and (d) of Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC permit the same person to appoint the members of the supervisory board of the transmission system operator (which in turn elects its management board) and the members of the board of directors of the undertaking which generates and supplies electricity?

               4.

               Do Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC, Regulation (EC) No 714/2009 (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003, (3) [Commission] Regulation (EU) 2015/1222 (4) [of 24 July 2015] establishing a guideline on capacity allocation and congestion management [and] Regulation (EU) No 1227/2011 (5) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency permit restrictions on the number of persons to whom a licence for electricity transmission may be issued in a particular territory?

               5.

               If the foregoing questions are answered in the affirmative and [on the basis that] in accordance with Article 43(1)(1) [of the Zakon na energetikata (Law on the energy sector)] only one single licence is issued for the territory of the Republic of Bulgaria: Must it be assumed that there is a conflict of interest within the meaning of [recital 12 of] Directive 2009/72/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity and repealing Directive 2003/54/EC?

               6.

               Must it be assumed that, in providing that only one licence for electricity transmission may be issued within the national territory, the national rule laid down in Article 43(1)(1) [of the Law on the energy sector] restricts competition within the meaning of Articles 101 TFEU and 102 TFEU?

      (1)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 55.

      (2)  OJ 2009 L 211, p. 15.

      (3)  Regulation (EC) No 1228/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity (OJ 2003 L 176, p. 1).

      (4)  OJ 2015 L 197, p. 24.

      (5)  OJ 2011 L 326, p. 1.


title: Joined Cases T-118/04 and T-134/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Caló v Commission (Officials — Reassignment of a Director as a Principal Adviser — Interest of the service — Equivalence of posts — Reorganisation of Eurostat — Appointment to a position as Director — Vacancy notice — Duty to state reasons — Assessment of the candidates' merits — Action for annulment — Action for damages)

text:
               14.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/31

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 7 February 2007 — Caló v Commission
   (Joined Cases T-118/04 and T-134/04) (1)

   (Officials - Reassignment of a Director as a Principal Adviser - Interest of the service - Equivalence of posts - Reorganisation of Eurostat - Appointment to a position as Director - Vacancy notice - Duty to state reasons - Assessment of the candidates' merits - Action for annulment - Action for damages)
   (2007/C 82/67)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Giuseppe Caló (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, agents)
   Re:
   First, an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 9 July 2003 to reassign the applicant from a post as Director to a post as Principal Adviser, of the Commission's decision of 1 October 2003 reorganising Eurostat, in so far as it confirms the applicant's reassignment, and an application for compensation for the non-material harm allegedly suffered by the applicant; secondly, an application for annulment of the Commission's decision of 30 March 2004 appointing Mr N. to the post of Director of the Eurostat directorate ‘Agriculture, fisheries, structural funds and environment statistics ’and rejecting the applicant's candidature for that post.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               in Case T-118/04, orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR one by way of damages for breach of administration;

               2.

               in Case T-134/04, orders the Commission to pay the applicant the sum of EUR 5 000 by way of damages for breach of administration;

               3.

               dismisses the actions as to the remainder;

               4.

               in Case T-118/04, orders the Commission to bear its own costs inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance, and one fifth of the costs incurred by the applicant inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance;

               5.

               in Case T-118/04, orders the applicant to bear four fifths of its own costs inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance;

               6.

               in Case T-134/04, orders the Commission to pay all of the costs inclusive of those of the proceedings for interim relief before the Court of First Instance.

      (1)  OJ C 118, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-486/10: Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               27.8.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/28

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2011 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-486/10) (1)

   2011/C 252/61
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2011.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 12 July 2005 in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (Citizenship of the Union — Articles 12 EC and 18 EC — Income tax — Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria — Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State)

text:
               3.9.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 12 July 2005
   in Case C-403/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof in Egon Schempp v Finanzamt München V (1)

   (Citizenship of the Union - Articles 12 EC and 18 EC - Income tax - Deductibility from taxable income of maintenance paid by a taxpayer resident in Germany to his former spouse resident in Austria - Proof of taxation of the maintenance payments in that Member State)
   (2005/C 217/22)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-403/03: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany), made by decision of 22 July 2003, received at the Court on 29 September 2003, in the proceedings between Egon Schempp and Finanzamt München V — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans and A. Rosas, Presidents of Chambers, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, A. La Pergola, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, J. Klučka, U. Lõhmus, E. Levits and A. Ó Caoimh (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 July 2005, in which it ruled:
   The first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 18(1) EC must be interpreted as not precluding a taxpayer resident in Germany from being unable, under national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, to deduct from his taxable income in that Member State the maintenance paid to his former spouse resident in another Member State in which the maintenance is not taxable, where he would be entitled to do so if his former spouse were resident in Germany.

      (1)  OJ C 304 of 13.12.2003.


title: Case C-526/03: Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 71/6               EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                        20.3.2004
2.  Does an infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC imply                    party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
    an obligation on the part of the person committing it to                  which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
    compensate end users, and all those who demonstrate                       abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
    that they have suffered any injury, for damage suffered?                  EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an
                                                                              application to a court other than the one which has
                                                                              jurisdiction ratione loci on the basis of the registered
3.  In assessing the amount of damages, in addition to the                    office (sede) of the subsidiary of the insurance company
    restitution of sums charged in breach of Community                        with which they entered into a contract or in the court
    rules, is the national court required (again as a matter of               district in which the injured party is resident, having
    Community law) to award the injured party a sum by way                    regard also to the difference in legal costs which each
    of punitive damages against those persons responsible                     approach involves?
    for the prohibited agreement or abuse of a dominant
    position?
                                                                        10. Does Community law require national courts to disapply
                                                                              national rules in conflict with Community law or rather
                                                                              to interpret them so as to comply with Community law?
4.  Does Community law also require the payment of
    damages for non-material loss?
5.  As a matter of Community law, is the national court
    required of its own motion to order the payment of
    punitive damages or damages for non-material loss?
6.  Is the limitation period of one year for bringing an action
    for damages for breach of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC                  Action brought on 17 December 2003 by the Commission
    under Italian law too short and therefore in conflict with          of the European Communities against the Hellenic
    Community law?                                                                                Republic
7.  As a matter of Community law, for the purposes of the                                        (Case C-526/03)
    limitation period for bringing an action for damages,
    does time begin to run from the day on which the
    infringement of Articles 81 EC and 82 EC was committed
    or the day on which that infringement came to an end?                                         (2004/C 71/09)
8.  Is there a conflict between Community competition law
    and/or the fundamental principles of Community law
    (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13        An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the
    of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a                   Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 December
    national provision having an effect similar to that in the          2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
    second paragraph of Article 3 of Italian Law No 287 of              represented by Gregorio Valerio Jordana and Minas Konstanti-
    10 October 1990 which requires a consumer or a third                nidis, of its Legal Service.
    party who has suffered damage as a result of an agreement
    which is unlawful and void under Article 81 EC or an
    abuse of a dominant position unlawful under Article 82
    EC and who seeks to obtain damages to make an                       The Commission claims that the Court should:
    application to a court other than the one which has
    jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for the
                                                                        —     declare that, by failing to take all the measures necessary
    value of the dispute in accordance with the ordinary
                                                                              to make urban waste water from the wider Athens region
    national rules on jurisdiction, Article 33 of Law No 287/
                                                                              subject to treatment more stringent than secondary
    90 involving an increase in the cost and duration of the
                                                                              treatment before its discharge into the sensitive area
    case which would not occur had the ordinary national
                                                                              comprising the inner Saronic Gulf, the Hellenic Republic
    rules on jurisdiction ratione loci, ratione materiae and for
                                                                              has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of
    the value of the dispute applied?
                                                                              Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concern-
                                                                              ing urban waste-water treatment, as amended by Com-
                                                                              mission 98/15/EC of 27 February 1998 which amends
9.  Is there a conflict between Community competition law                     Council Directive 91/271 with respect to certain require-
    and/or the fundamental principles of Community law                        ments established in Annex I (1) thereto;
    (with reference in particular to Article 6(1) and Article 13
    of the European Convention on Human Rights) and a
    national provision which requires a consumer or a third             —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 20.3.2004              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 71/7
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           f)   infringement and failure to comply with the ‘practice for
                                                                               aid to farms in difficulty’ and with the ‘Community
—     The dispute concerns not the classification of the Saronic               guidelines on State aid for rescuing and restructuring
      Gulf as a sensitive area but the lack of a system subjecting             firms in difficulty’;
      urban waste water from the wider Athens area to
      treatment more stringent than secondary treatment                   g)   breach of the principle of legitimate expectations.
      before its discharge into a sensitive area.
                                                                          (1) OJ L 248 of 11.9.1997, p. 27.
—     It is an unquestionable fact that on expiry of the period           (2) OJ L 93 of 30.3.1985, p. 1.
      prescribed by the Commission in its reasoned opinion,
      but also up to the time when the present action was
      brought, urban waste water from the Psitallia plant did
      not receive treatment more stringent than secondary
      treatment.
                                                                          Action brought on 22 December 2003 by the Commission
(1) OJ L 135 of 30.5.1991, p. 40.                                         of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
                                                                                (Case C-538/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 71/11)
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by order of the
Tribunale di Cagliari of 20 October 2003 in the case                      An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
between Marco Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
              Regione Autonoma della Sardegna                             ties on 22 December 2003 by the Commission of the
                                                                          European Communities, represented by Nicola Yerrell, of the
                         (Case C-529/03)                                  Commission’s Legal Service, and Horstpeter Kreppel, a labour
                                                                          court judge appointed to the Commission’s Legal Service under
                                                                          the exchange programme for national public servants, acting
                          (2004/C 71/10)                                  as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
A reference for a preliminary ruling was made to the Court of             1.   Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
Justice of the European Communities by order of the Tribunale                  infringed the principle of equal treatment for men and
di Cagliari on 20 October 2003 in proceedings between Marco                    women laid down under Articles 1, 2 and 5 of Council
Antonio Scalas and Renato Lilliu and the Regione Autonoma                      Directive 76/207/EEC (1), and Clause 4 of the Framework
della Sardegna which was lodged at the Court Registry on                       Agreement on part-time work concluded between UNICE,
19 December 2003. The Tribunale di Cagliari seeks a ruling                     CEEP and the ETUC set out in the Annex to Council
on the validity of Commission Decision No 97/612 (1), having                   Directive 97/81/EC (2), in that it indirectly discriminates
regard to the following defects:                                               against women, who form the great majority of part-time
                                                                               employees working less than 18 hours a week in the
a)    lack of competence on the part of the Commission to                      German public sector,
      adopt the contested decision in infringement of the
      combined provisions of Articles 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37                   by excluding,
      and 38 EC;
                                                                               (a)   under Paragraph 14(2) of the Bundespersonalvertre-
b)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure                         tungsgesetz (Federal Law on staff committees in
      provided for under Article 88(1) EC;                                           the public sector) and the equivalent regulations
                                                                                applying in the Länder of
c)    infringement of the provisions governing the procedure
                                                                                —     Bavaria
      provided for under Article 88(2) and (3) EC;
                                                                                —     Berlin
d)    failure to state reasons for the decision in application of
      the combined provisions of Articles 253, 88(3) and 87(1)                       —     Bremen
      EC;
                                                                                —     Hesse,
e)    infringement and erroneous application of Council Regu-
      lation No 797/85 (2) on improving the efficiency of                            part-time employees who normally work less than
      agricultural structures;                                                       18 hours a week, and


title: Case T-433/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy) (Community trade mark — Application for a Community trade mark consisting of fixing a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)

text:
               22.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 52/35

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 January 2014 — Steiff v OHIM (Metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy)
   (Case T-433/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Application for a Community trade mark consisting of fixing a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) 207/2009)
   2014/C 52/66
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Margarete Steiff GmbH (Giengen an der Brenz, Germany) (represented by: D. Fissl, lawyer)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Pohlmann, Agent)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 July 2012 (Case R 1693/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of a sign consisting of fixing of a metal button in the middle section of the ear of a soft toy as a Community trade mark.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Margarete Steiff GmbH to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 366, 24.11.2012.


title: Case T-460/07: Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/48

         Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)
   (Case T-460/07)
   (2008/C 51/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Nokia Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)
   Form of order sought

               —

               The decision of 2 October 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 141/2007-2 should be set aside in its entirety and the case should be remitted to the OHIM for registration of the applicant's trade mark;

               —

               the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘LIFE BLOG’ for goods and services in class 9, 38 and 41 — application No 3 564 366

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Medion AG

      Mark or sign cited: The national and international word marks ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIFETEC’, for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 28, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the national and international word mark ‘LIFESAT’ for goods in Class 9 and the national word mark ‘Lifesign’ for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 16

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for registration partially

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.


title: Case C-367/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Dawid Piotrowski

text:
               12.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 335/40

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Brussel (Belgium) lodged on 5 July 2016 — Openbaar Ministerie v Dawid Piotrowski
   (Case C-367/16)
   (2016/C 335/54)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van beroep te Brussel

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Openbaar Ministerie

      Respondent: Dawid Piotrowski

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 3.3 of the Framework Decision (1) on the European arrest warrant be interpreted as meaning that surrender can be granted only in respect of persons who are regarded as having attained the age of majority under the law of the executing Member State, or does that provision allow the executing Member State also to grant the surrender of minors who, on the basis of national rules, can be held criminally responsible from a certain age (and whether or not there has been compliance with various conditions)?

               2.

               On the hypothesis that the surrender of minors is not prohibited by Article 3.3 of the Framework Decision, should that provision then be interpreted:

                           (a)

                           as meaning that the existence of a (theoretical) possibility of being able to punish minors from a certain age in accordance with national law suffices as a criterion for granting the surrender (in other words, by carrying out an assessment in abstracto on the basis of the criterion of the age from which someone can be regarded as criminally responsible, without taking into account any possible further conditions)?; or

                           (b)

                           as meaning that neither the principle of mutual recognition, as referred to in Article 1.2 of the Framework Decision, nor the text of Article 3.3 of the Framework Decision precludes the executing Member State from carrying out an assessment in concreto on a case-by-case basis, where it may be required that, so far as concerns the person whose surrender is sought, the same conditions for criminal responsibility must be met as those that apply to the nationals of the executing Member State, having regard to their age at the time of the acts, having regard to the nature of the alleged offence and possibly even having regard to the preceding judicial interventions in the issuing Member State which led to a measure of an educational nature, even if those conditions did not exist in the issuing Member State?

               3.

               If the executing Member State may carry out an assessment in concreto, is then, in order to avoid impunity, no distinction to be made between a surrender for the purposes of a criminal prosecution and a surrender for the purposes of the enforcement of a sentence?

      (1)  Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States (OJ 2002 L 190, p. 1).


title: Case F-155/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 February 2014 — García Dominguez v Commission (Civil Service — Competition — Competition notice EPSO/AD/215/11 — Not included in the reserve list — Reasons for decision rejecting an application — Principle of equal treatment — Conflict of interests)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/45

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 25 February 2014 — García Dominguez v Commission
   (Case F-155/12) (1)

   ((Civil Service - Competition - Competition notice EPSO/AD/215/11 - Not included in the reserve list - Reasons for decision rejecting an application - Principle of equal treatment - Conflict of interests))
   2014/C 102/66
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Luis García Dominguez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and A. Tymen, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Eggers and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision not to include the applicant in the reserve list for competition EPSO/AD/215/11.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

               2.

               Mr García Dominguez shall bear his own costs and shall pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 63, 2.3.2013, p. 26.


title: Case T-408/08: Action brought on 25 September 2008 — S.F. Turistico Immobiliare v Council and Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/53

         Action brought on 25 September 2008 — S.F. Turistico Immobiliare v Council and Commission
   (Case T-408/08)
   (2008/C 301/89)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: S.F. Turistico Immobiliare Srl (Orosei, Italy) (represented by: L. Marcialis, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union and Commission of the European Communities
   Forms of order sought
   Principal forms of order sought:

               —

               Declare null and void the decision of the Commission of the European Communities C(2008) 2997 of 2 July 2008 on a State aid scheme: ‘Misuse of aid measure No N 272/98, Regional Act No 9 of 1998’;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant.

         Alternative form of order sought:

               —

               Annul in part the contested decision, in so far as it declares the entire aid scheme incompatible with the common market, ‘unless the recipient of the aid submitted an application for aid under the scheme before starting work on an initial investment project’, and orders the Republic of Italy to recover the relevant amounts, without excepting the aid in so far as it provides an incentive to keep the resulting costs — borne by the recipient before the aid application was submitted — within the limits provided for under the de minimis aid provisions.

         Further alternative form of order sought:

               —

               Declare unlawful point 4.2 of the Council Guidelines on national regional aid (98 C 74/06), according to which ‘[i]n addition, aid schemes must lay down that an application for aid must be submitted before work is started on the projects’, in so far as it excludes from eligibility all aid intended in favour of recipients, without excepting that part of the aid relating to investments, made after submission of the application, which are functionally or structurally autonomous.

               —

               Annul in part the contested decision, in so far as it orders full recovery by the Republic of Italy of the amounts previously disbursed, without excepting the aid in so far as it provides an incentive for costs to be borne by the recipient after submission of the application for aid and relating to portions which are functionally or structurally autonomous in relation to the project undertaken.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The contested decision in the present case is the same as that at issue in Case T-394/08 Regione Sardegna v Commission.
   The pleas in law and principal arguments are similar to those put forward in Case T-394/08.
   The applicant pleads in particular the unlawfulness, within the meaning of Article 241 EC, of point 4.2 of the Council Guidelines on national regional aid (98 C 74/06), in so far as it is wholly counter to the rationale underlying the Community aid policies, especially in a case characterised by such special features, to infer from the completion of a small part (roughly 20 %) of the planned work that the rest of the work is wholly ineligible for aid, even though that work had duly been commenced during a time-period subsequent to that established by the guidelines in question.


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 15 January 2004 in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division): The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Penycoed Farming Partnership (Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the producer)

text:
C 47/4                   EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.2.2004
Community law on freedom to provide services precludes a business             composed of: V. Skouris, acting for the President of the
from being subject to an obligation to be entered on the trades register      Sixth Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and
which delays, complicates or renders more onerous the provision of its        N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
services in the host Member State where the conditions prescribed by          General; L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
the directive governing recognition of professional qualifications            has given a judgment on 15 January 2004, in which it has
which is applicable to pursuit of that activity in the host Member            ruled:
State are satisfied.
                                                                              Articles 1 and 2 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of
                                                                              28 December 1992 establishing an additional levy in the milk and
The mere fact that a business established in one Member State
                                                                              milk products sector do not authorise the competent body to act
supplies identical or similar services in a repeated or more or less
                                                                              directly, in cases other than that of direct sales, against a producer to
regular manner in a second Member State, without having an
                                                                              recover the amount owed by him in respect of the additional levy on
infrastructure there enabling it to pursue a professional activity there
                                                                              milk. However, the Member States’ obligation under Article 10 EC
on a stable and continuous basis and, from the infrastructure, to hold
                                                                              to take measures to ensure collection of the levy in the event of the
itself out to, amongst others, nationals of the second Member State,
                                                                              mechanism provided for in Article 2(2) of that regulation being
cannot be sufficient for it to be regarded as established in the second
                                                                              frustrated includes the power to take direct action against the producer
Member State.
                                                                              with a view to recovering the amount payable where it is established
                                                                              that the producer has not paid it to the purchaser and that the
                                                                              purchaser is not taking due steps to collect it from the producer. On
(1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.
                                                                              the other hand, non-compliance with the conditions laid down in
                                                                              Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March
                                                                              1993 laying down detailed rules on the application of the additional
                                                                              levy on milk and milk products, and in particular the absence of
                                                                              approval as purchaser, is not in itself relevant.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 352 of 4.12.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 15 January 2004
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-230/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division):
The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce v Peny-                                                of 13 January 2004
                   coed Farming Partnership (1)
                                                                              in Case C-256/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
(Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 — Additional levy in the                         the Court of Appeal (England & Wales) (Civil Division):
milk and milk products sector — Deliveries by a producer to                   Debra Allonby v Accrington & Rossendale College, Edu-
a purchaser — Payment of levy — Recovery from the                             cation Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol Pro-
                               producer)                                      fessional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Sec-
                                                                                retary of State for Education and Employment (1)
                           (2004/C 47/06)
                                                                              (Principle of equal pay for men and women — Direct effect
                                                                              — Meaning of worker — Self-employed female lecturer
                     (Language of the case: English)                          undertaking work presumed to be of equal value to that
                                                                              which is undertaken in the same college by male lecturers
                                                                              who are employees, but under contract with a third company
                                                                              — Self-employed lecturers not eligible for membership of an
In Case C-230/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                                        occupational pension scheme)
EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                           (2004/C 47/07)
court between The Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
and Penycoed Farming Partnership, on the interpretation of
Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December 1992                                            (Language of the case: English)
establishing an additional levy in the milk and milk products
sector (OJ 1992 L 405, p. 1) and Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 536/93 of 9 March 1993 laying down detailed rules
on the application of the additional levy on milk and milk                    In Case C-256/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
products (OJ 1993 L 57, p. 12), the Court (Sixth Chamber),                    EC by the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) (Civil Division)