title: Case C-397/12 P: Appeal brought on 28 August 2012 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission

text:
               27.10.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 331/14

      Appeal brought on 28 August 2012 by Transports Schiocchet — Excursions against the order of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11 Schiocchet v Council and Commission
      (Case C-397/12 P)
      (2012/C 331/22)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Appellant: Transports Schiocchet — Excursions (represented by: E. Deshoulières, avocat)

         Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union, European Commission

         Form of order sought

                  —

                  Set aside in its entirety the order of inadmissibility of the General Court of the European Union of 18 June 2012 in Case T-203/11;

                  —

                  Uphold the claims made by the applicant at first instance, namely:

                              —

                              order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission jointly and severally to compensate SARL Transports Schiocchet — Excursions for the loss which it has suffered, which amounts to EUR 8 372 483;

                              —

                              rule that the sums thus awarded are to bear interest at the statutory rate to run from notification of the preliminary claim for compensation to the European Commission;

                  —

                  Order the Council of the European Union and the European Commission to pay the costs incurred by the applicant, on the basis of Article 69 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      The applicant raises four complaints against the order of the General Court, by which the General Court dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law its application for compensation for the loss allegedly suffered.
      Firstly, the applicant submits that the General Court ruled on the gravity of the wrongful act of the organs of the European Union when a mere infringement of a higher rule of law by an institution of the European Union would suffice to constitute a wrongful act by an institution of the European Union and that the General Court, when examining the admissibility of the application, may rule only on the manifest absence of wrongful act and not on the gravity thereof.
      Secondly, the applicant argues that the General Court did not deal with all of the applicant’s arguments. In particular, the General Court did not draw the appropriate conclusions from the fact that Regulation No 684/92 (1) did not provide for any penalty against the Member States which do not comply with the authorisation procedure which it institutes.
      Thirdly, the applicant disputes the decision of the General Court in that the General Court considered that the applicant’s right to an effective remedy was indeed safeguarded in the context of the system introduced by Regulation No 684/92.
      Lastly, the applicant claims that, in its decision, the General Court failed to have regard to the Commission’s liability by accepting its wrongful failures to act. In the opinion of the applicant, the Commission neither drafted the follow-up report required under Regulation No 684/92 nor took into consideration the situation of economic operators in infringement of Article 94 TFEU.

         (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March 1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ 1992 L 74, p. 1).


title: Case T-192/11: Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council

text:
               21.5.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 152/30

         Action brought on 31 March 2011 — Seka Yapo and Others v Council
   (Case T-192/11)
   2011/C 152/54
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: Anselme Seka Yapo (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire), Brouha Nathanaël Ahouma (Abidjan), Blé Brunot Dogbo (Abidjan), Gagbei Faussignaux Vagba (Abidjan), Georges Guiai Bi Poin (Abidjan), Affro (Abidjan), Kassaraté Tiapé (Abidjan) and Philippe Mangou (Abidjan) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern the applicants;

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and principal arguments relied on by the applicants are in essence identical or similar to those relied upon in Case T-118/11 Attey v Council.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 May 2005 in Case C-249/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège, Neufchâteau section José Allard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC et 43 EC) — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Self-employed persons pursuing professional activities in the territories of two Member States and residing in one of them — Requirement of a moderation contribution — Basis of calculation)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/17

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 26 May 2005
   in Case C-249/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour du travail de Liège, Neufchâteau section José Allard v Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) (1)

   (Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 39 EC et 43 EC) - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Self-employed persons pursuing professional activities in the territories of two Member States and residing in one of them - Requirement of a moderation contribution - Basis of calculation)
   (2005/C 182/31)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-249/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Cour du travail de Liège, Neufchâteau section (Belgium), made by decision of 9 June 2004, received at the Court on 11 June 2004, in the proceedings between José Allard and Institut national d'assurances sociales pour travailleurs indépendants (Inasti) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, P. Kūris and J. Klučka (Rapporteur), Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 26 May 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Article 13 et seq. of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, require a contribution such as the moderation contribution payable under Royal Decree No 289 of 31 March 1984 to be calculated in such as way as to include under the heading of occupational income the income obtained in the territory of a Member State other than the Member State whose social legislation is applicable even if, after paying that contribution, the self-employed person cannot claim any social security or other benefit at the expense of that State.

               2.

               Article 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 43 EC) does not preclude the imposition of a contribution such as the moderation contribution, payable in the Member State of residence and calculated taking into account income obtained in another Member State, on self-employed persons pursuing professional activities in that capacity in those two Member States.

      (1)  OJ C 190 of 24.07.2004.


title: Case C-535/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2008 — Maria Catena Rita Pignatoro v Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania and Others

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 3 December 2008 — Maria Catena Rita Pignatoro v Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania and Others
   (Case C-535/08)
   (2009/C 32/38)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Maria Catena Rita Pignatoro

      Defendants: Ufficio Centrale Circoscrizionale c/o Tribunale di Catania and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Whether or not Article 6 of the EU Treaty, Article 3 of the First Additional Protocol to the ECHR, implemented by Law No 848 of 1955, Article 2 of Protocol No 4 to the ECHR, and Article 25 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, implemented by Law No 881 of 1977, are to be interpreted as compatible with the regional rules laid down in Articles 1c, 14a(13)(c), 15(3)(d), 16a(7)(a) and 17b(4)(b) and (c) of Regional Law No 29 of 1951, which exclude citizens who were not resident in Sicily at the time at which nominations were put forward from eligibility for election to the Sicilian Regional Assembly.

               2.

               Whether Articles 17 EC and 18 EC (formerly Article 8A of the EC Treaty) preclude or are compatible with the regional rules referred to in paragraph 4.1.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 13 November 1996, in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld (Case C-374/96)

text:
 11 . 1 . 97            EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 9 / 15
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht              Is the first subparagraph of Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation
Düsseldorf, by order of that court of 13 November 1996,                ( EEC ) No 1546/88 ( ! ), as amended by Regulation ( EEC )
in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen v. Hauptzollamt                   No 1033/89 (2 ), valid in so far as it requires, over and
                                 Bielefeld                             above the requirements laid down in the first sentence of
                           ( Case C-374/96                             Article 3a ( 3 ) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 857/84 ( 3 ), as
                                                                       amended by Regulation ( EEC) No 764/89 ( 4 ) and by
                              ( 97/C 9/25 )                            Regulation ( EEC ) No 1639/91 ( 5 ), that the producer must
                                                                       actually have resumed direct sales and/or deliveries of milk
                                                                       for at least 12 months ?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht                     (1)  OJ No  L 139, 4. 6 . 1988 , p. 12 .
 ( Finance Court) Düsseldorf of 13 November 1996,                      (2 ) OJ No  L 110, 21 . 4. 1989, p. 27.
received at the Court Registry on 26 November 1996, for                (3 ) OJ No  L 90, 1 . 4. 1984, p. 13 .
a preliminary ruling in the case of Florian Vorderbrüggen              (4)  OJ No  L 84 , 29 . 3 . 1989 , p . 2 .
v. Hauptzollamt Bielefeld on the following question :                  (5)  OJ No  L 150, 15 . 6 . 1991 , p. 35 .
                                                      COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                        ( Second Chamber)
                                                                                of 12 November 1996
                       of 8 November 1996
                                                                       in Case T-47/96: Syndicat départemental de défense du
in Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG                  droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ) v. Commission of the
( which has become Preussag Stahl AG ) v. Commission of                                    European Communities ( x )
                 the European Communities 0 )
                                                                       (Commission 's refusal to commence the infringement
                        (Taxation of costs)                              procedure — Action for failure to act — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                ( 97/C 9/27 )
                              ( 97/C 9/26 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                (Language of the case: German)                         In Case T-47/96 : the Syndicat départemental de défense du
                                                                       droit des agriculteurs ( SDDDA ), whose registered office is
                                                                       at Beaucaire ( France ), represented initially by Olivier
                                                                       Girard, of the Nîmes Bar, and subsequently by Maryse
In Case T-120/89(92 ): Stahlwerke Peine-Salzgitter AG
                                                                       Joissains-Masini, of the Aix-en-Provence Bar, against the
(which has become Preussag Stahl AG ), represented by
                                                                       Commission of the European Communities ( Agent: Denise
Messrs Deringer, Tessin, Herrmann and Sedemund, of the
                                                                       Sorasio ) — application pursuant to Article 175 of the EC
Berlin Bar, against the Commission of the European
                                                                       Treaty for a declaration that, by not initiating the
Communities ( Agent: Götz zur Hausen ) — application for
                                                                       procedure pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty in
taxation of the costs payable by the defendant to the
                                                                       respect of the French Republic, the Commission failed to
applicant pursuant to the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                       act — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber),
Instance of 27 June 1991 in Case T-120/89 Stahlwerke
                                                                       composed of C. W. Bellamy, President, H. Kirschner and
Peine-Salzgitter AG v. Commission [ 1991 ] ECR 11-279 —
                                                                       A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
the Court of First Instance, composed of R. García-
                                                                       order on 12 November 1996 , the operative part of which
Valdecasas, President, J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H.              is as follows :
Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 November 1996, the
operative part of which is as follows:                                 1.   The action is dismissed as inadmissible.
                                                                       2 . There is no need to take a decision on the applications
The total costs payable by the Commission to Stahlwerke                     to intervene .
Peine-Salzgitter AG (PSAG) are fixed in the sum of
DM 160 000 .                                                           3 . The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. The
                                                                            Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic are each
                                                                            ordered to bear their own costs.
( ] ) OJ No C 207, 12 . 8 . 1989 , p . 15 .
                                                                       0 ) OJ No C 180, 22 . 6 . 1996 , p . 32 .


title: Case T-45/00: Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil National des Professions de l'Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and Others against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 135/20              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                       13.5.2000
Grounds of claim:             — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)         — Inadmissible use of the ‘sharing-key’ paper
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                              — Infringement of Article 7(1)(c)             The applicant maintains that the use of evidence supplied
                                  of Regulation (EC) No 40/94               anonymously is generally inadmissible.
                                                                        — Inadequate statement of reasons
                                                                            The explanations in ground 68 of the contested decision,
                                                                            in particular, concerning proof of active protection of the
                                                                            home market, were contradictory and, in themselves,
                                                                            inconclusive.
Action brought on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-
mannröhren-Werke AG against the Commission of the                       — Erroneous application of Article 81(1) EC to the agreement
                    European Communities                                    with British Steel
                         (Case T-44/00)                                     This agreement was negotiated individually and contained
                                                                            no exclusive supply agreement or horizontal concertation.
                                                                            The chosen percentage link to British Steel’s total require-
                        (2000/C 135/37)
                                                                            ments and the agreed price formula were legally unobjec-
                                                                            tionable.
                  (Language of the case: German)
                                                                        — Erroneous application of the guidelines for the procedure
                                                                            in determining fines
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  The determination of the fine contained an error of
European Communities on 28 February 2000 by Mannes-                         assessment, since it did not take sufficient account of the
mannröhren-Werke AG, whose registered office is in Mülheim                  varying market significance of the undertakings concerned.
an der Ruhr (Germany), represented by Martin Klusmann,                      In addition, further extenuating grounds and the appli-
Rechtsanwalt, Düsseldorf, with an address for service in                    cant’s contribution to elucidating the matter were not
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn & Schmidt, 7 Val Ste                     appropriately evaluated.
Croix.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Commission Decision K(99) 4154 endg. of
    8 December 1999, in so far as it concerns the applicant;
— in the alternative, reduce the fine imposed on the applicant          Action brought on 29 February 2000 by the Conseil
    by that decision by an appropriate amount;                          National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.) and
                                                                        Others against the Commission of the European Com-
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                                             munities
                                                                                (Case T-45/00)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (2000/C 135/38)
The applicant is a producer of seamless steel tubes. In the
contested decision, the Commission finds infringement of
Article 81(1) EC by the applicant and several other undertak-
ings. The action is based on the following grounds in particular:                           (Language of the case: French)
— Infringement of procedural rights                                     An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    Certain parts of the investigation file were withheld from          European Communities on 29 February 2000, by the Conseil
    the applicant, contrary to the provisions on access to              National des Professions de l’Automobile (C.N.P.A.), whose
    Commission documents.                                               registered office is in Suresnes, France, the Fédération Nationale
                                                                        des Distributeurs, Loueurs et Réparateurs de Matériels de
— Infringement of rights of the defence                                 Bâtiment-Travaux Publics et de Manutention (D.L.R.), whose
                                                                        registered office is in Joinville-Le-Pont, France, Auto Contrôle
    Because of the short deadlines for replying to the heads of         31 and Yam 31 SARL, whose registered office is in Toulouse,
    complaint, the applicant did not have sufficient oppor-             France, Marc Foucher-Créteau, resident in Paris, and Verdier
    tunity to defend itself. Moreover, the in its final decision,       Distribition SARL, whose registered office is in Juvignac,
    the Commission diverged from essential accusations in the           France, represented by Christian Bourgeon, of the Paris Bar,
    heads of complaint without giving the applicant the                 with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
    opportunity to amend its position.                                  François Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.5.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 135/21
The applicant claims that the Court should:                             Action brought on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen
                                                                          against the Commission of the European Communities
— declare that the Commission infringed essential procedural
     requirements in the consultation process;                                                   (Case T-46/00)
— find that EEC Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December                                            (2000/C 135/39)
     1999 does not mention abuse of economic dependance as
     one of the restrictions on competition set out in Article 4,
     even in the event of cumulative effect;                                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
— annul Regulation No 2790/99 of 22 December 1999;                      An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                                European Communities on 23 February 2000 by AS Kvitsjoen,
                                                                        a company incorporated under Norwegian law, having its
                                                                        registered office in Norway, represented by K. Storalm, of the
                                                                        Stavanger (Norway) Bar, J.P. Hoekstra, of the Amsterdam
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         (Netherlands) Bar, and G. Vanquathem, of the Bar of Knokke-
                                                                        Heist (Belgium), with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                                                                        the Chambers of M. Michel, 48 Avenue de la Gare.
The applicants challenge Regulation EC No 2790/99 of
22 December 1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the             The applicant claims that the Court should:
Treaty to categories of vertical agreements and concerted
practices (1). This is a block exemption regulation in that it is
intended to cover all forms of ‘vertical’ practice in all sectors       — declare the action to be admissible and well founded;
of the economy. It is also intended to cover exclusive and
selective car distribution if the regulation currently in force in      — consequently,           annul       Commission         Decision
the car sector is not renewed when it expires.                              SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999;
                                                                        — make the appropriate order as to costs.
In support of their application, the applicants argue, inter alia,
that the consultations leading up to adoption of the regulation
were not carried out in a manner consistent with the spirit of
the Treaty, and more specifically Article 83(1), which requires         Pleas in law and main arguments
a minimum level of transparency when dealing with objections
and a minimum degree of explanation as to why they are
dismissed. In general, the true impact of the modernisation             The Netherlands authorities brought proceedings against the
programme on competition in terms of the fate of small and              vessel M600 (the property of the applicant) on the ground that
medium-sized enterprises and their significantly increased              it was using illegal nets and deliberately fishing for sole.
economic dependance was passed over silently and hidden
from the decision-making and consultative bodies to whom
that very information was indispensable.                                The applicant contends that the Netherlands authorities are
                                                                        doing all within their power to keep certain Norwegian fishing
                                                                        vessels out of Community waters and thereby to create
The applicants further state that the renewal of the contested          additional fishing opportunities for, in particular, vessels flying
regulation was presented as merely being a procedural matter            the Dutch flag. The applicant claims that the Netherlands
which did not justify or effect any amendment to the Treaty.            authorities have been pressurising the Commission to with-
However, in the view of the applicants, the regulation in               draw the fishing licences for the aforementioned Norwegian
question changes the spirit, if not the letter, of the Treaty. It       vessels.
calls into question certain issues which were already settled,
in particular as regards the retrospective consequences of
                                                                        The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
automatic invalidity which remains the formal position under
                                                                        SG(99)D/10760 of 22 December 1999 withdrawing the fish-
Article 81(2) and the principle of prohibition which also
remains the formal position under Article 81(1).                        ing licence and special fishing permit of the fishing vessel
                                                                        ‘Kvitsjoen’ and providing that no fishing licence or special
                                                                        fishing permit may be issued to it before 30 June 2000.
(1) OJ 1999 L 336, p. 21.
                                                                        Relations between the European Communities and Norway
                                                                        are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 50/1999 of
                                                                        18 December 1998 laying down, for 1999, certain measures
                                                                        for the conservation and management of fishery resources
                                                                        applicable to vessels flying the flag of Norway.


               10.10.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/6

         Action brought on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority against Iceland
   (Case E-17/13)
   2013/C 294/06
   An action against Iceland was brought before the EFTA Court on 10 July 2013 by the EFTA Surveillance Authority, represented by Xavier Lewis and Clémence Perrin, acting as Agents of the EFTA Surveillance Authority, 35 Rue Belliard, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.
   The EFTA Surveillance Authority requests the EFTA Court to:

               1.

               declare that by failing (i) to adopt, or (ii) to notify the EFTA Surveillance Authority forthwith of, all the measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims), as adapted to the Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto, within the time prescribed, Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under the Act and under Article 7 of the Agreement;

               2.

               order Iceland to bear the costs of these proceedings.

         Legal and factual background and pleas in law adduced in support:

               —

               The present application by the EFTA Surveillance Authority addresses Iceland’s failure to comply, no later than 12 November 2012, with a reasoned opinion delivered by the EFTA Surveillance Authority on 12 September 2012 regarding that State’s failure to implement into its national legal order Article 2 of Directive 2009/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 May 2009 amending Directive 98/26/EC on settlement finality in payment and securities settlement systems and Directive 2002/47/EC on financial collateral arrangements as regards linked systems and credit claims (‘the Act’), as referred to at point 16b, first indent, of Annex IX and point 4, first indent, of Annex XII to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, and as adapted to that Agreement by way of Protocol 1 thereto.

               —

               The EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has not disputed that there is a continued delay in implementing Article 2 of the Act. As a result, the EFTA Surveillance Authority submits that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 3 of the Act and under Article 7 of the EEA Agreement by failing to adopt or to notify the measures necessary to implement Article 2 of the Act within the time prescribed.


title: Case C-544/11: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen (Freedom to provide services — Freedom of movement for workers — Legislation of a Member State allowing exemption from taxation on income received for work carried out in another State in the context of development aid — Conditions — Establishment of the employer within the national territory — Refusal where the employer is established in another Member State)

text:
               20.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 114/15

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Germany) — Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen v Finanzamt Ludwigshafen
   (Case C-544/11) (1)

   (Freedom to provide services - Freedom of movement for workers - Legislation of a Member State allowing exemption from taxation on income received for work carried out in another State in the context of development aid - Conditions - Establishment of the employer within the national territory - Refusal where the employer is established in another Member State)
   2013/C 114/20
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Helga Petersen, Peter Petersen

      Defendant: Finanzamt Ludwigshafen

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Rheinland-Pfalz — Interpretation of Article 56 TFEU — Restrictions on the freedom to provide services within the European Union — Legislation of a Member State allowing exemption from taxation of income received for work carried out abroad in the context of development aid — Restriction of that exemption to situations where the employer is established within the national territory

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 45 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding national legislation of a Member State pursuant to which income received for employment activities by a taxpayer who is resident in that Member State and has unlimited tax liability is exempt from income tax if the employer is established in that Member State, but is not so exempt if that employer is established in another Member State.

      (1)  OJ C 25, 28.1.2012.


title: Case C-431/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma de País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/31

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma de País Vasco (Spain) lodged on 18 October 2006 — Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja v Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   (Case C-431/06)
   (2006/C 326/65)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Referring court
   Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Autónoma de País Vasco
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Comunidad Autónoma de la Rioja

      Defendants: Diputación Foral de Guipúzcoa, Juntas Generales de Guipúzcoa, Confederación Empresarial Vasca
   Question referred
   Must Article 87(1) EC be construed as meaning that, by providing for a rate of tax lower than the basic rate set in Spanish State legislation and for a deduction from the amount of tax payable which does not exist in State tax legislation, provisions in the field of taxation adopted by the Juntas Generales del Territorio Histórico de Gipuzkoa amending Articles 29(1)(a) and 37 of the Provincial Law on Company Tax, which take effect in the jurisdiction of that infra-State autonomous body, must be regarded as selective and as covered by the definition of State aid enshrined in Article 87(1) EC and, accordingly, must be notified to the Commission pursuant to Article 88(3) EC?


title: Action brought on 29 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium (Case C-355/98)

text:
C 358/8              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     21.11.98
The appellants claim that the Court should:                                    the Court of First Instance maintains, in the
                                                                               absence of any opinion Ð pursuant to Article 10
                                                                               of the Cosmetics Directive';
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    16 July 1998 (1);
                                                                           Ð the Commission should have given Mr Goupil and
                                                                               the numerous international scientists who have
Ð uphold in their entirety the appellants' claims that the                     continually demonstrated that Bergasol is both
    Court should:                                                              harmless and efficacious an opportunity to make
                                                                               an extensive and genuine contribution to its
    Ð rule that the action is admissible and well founded;                     research.
    Ð order the Commission to pay Laboratories
        Pharmaceutiques Bergaderm SA and Jean-Jacques                      Exclusion from the market is disproportionate to the
        Goupil, personally, FF 152 867 090 and FF                          risks normally inherent in the economic activity at
        161 309 995.33, respectively, by way of damages                    issue, especially as it is by no means justified in terms
        together with interest;                                            of public health.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 299, 26.9.1998, p. 32.
Ð order the Commission to pay the whole of the costs.                 (2) OJ L 167, 18.7.1995, p. 19.
                                                                      (3) Council Directive 76/768/EEC (OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 169).
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Ð Breach of Community law in that the Court of First
    Instance held the relevant provision of 18th
    Commission Directive 95/34/EC of 10 July 1995
    adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, VI and            Action brought on 29 September 1998 by the Commission
    VII to Council Directive 76/768/EEC (2) (hereinafter              of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
    the Adapting Directive') to be a normative measure:                                           Belgium
    since Mr Goupil is the sole holder of a patent for the
                                                                                (Case C-355/98)
    use in sun lotion of natural essence of citrus fruits
    containing 5-MOP, Bergaderm SA is individually and                                         (98/C 358/17)
    directly concerned by the measure at issue because it is
    the only person to be affected by it.
                                                                      An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought
Ð Manifest error of assessment made by the Court of                   before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    First Instance with regard to the fault committed by              on 29 September 1998 by the Commission of the
    the Commission: contrary to the statement made in                 European Communities, represented by Maria Patakia, of
    the relevant provision of the Adapting Directive, it              its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
    was perfectly possible Ð on the basis of all the                  service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la
    scientific studies available on Bergasol as a finished            Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    product Ð logically to conclude that Bergasol is both
    harmless and efficacious. The approach adopted by
    the Commission, which deliberately disregarded the                The Commission claims that the Court should:
    principle of audi alteram partem, played into the
    hands of Bergaderm's commercial competitors.
                                                                      1. Declare that, by adopting, within the framework of
                                                                           the Law of 10 April 1990 on security firms, security
(By way of subsidiary pleas)                                               systems firms and internal security services, provisions
                                                                           which:
Ð Breach of Community law in that the Court of First
    Instance did not find any breach of a higher-ranking                   (a) make it necessary to obtain prior authorisation in
    rule of law for the protection of individuals. In the                       order to operate an undertaking of any of the
    context of the Cosmetics Directive' (3), the                               kinds referred to in the said Law, that
    Commission has no discretion, because it must follow                        authorisation being subject to a certain number of
    a strict procedure involving consultation and approval,                     conditions, namely that:
    and if it in any way fails to have proper regard for
    that procedure or commits any error in connection                           Ð a security firm must have a place of business
    therewith, it incurs liability. Specifically, in the present                    in Belgium;
    case:
                                                                                Ð persons who
    Ð the Commission should have approached the                                     Ð have charge of the actual management of
        Council after the Adaptation Committee delivered                                 a security firm or internal security service,
        an unfavourable opinion on 1 June 1992 Ð or, as                                  or who
 ---pagebreak--- 21.11.98              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 358/9
              Ð work in or on behalf of such an                         distance, the cost and the delay are grounds for
                   undertaking or are employed for the                  considering that such a card constitutes an impediment
                   purposes of its activities, with the                 when it must also be obtained by the staff of an
                   exception of internal staff working in               undertaking established in another country in order to
                   administration or logistics,                         provide services in Belgium.
              must have their permanent residence or,
              failing that, their habitual residence in                 Whilst the possibility of carrying arms forms one
              Belgium,                                                  aspect of the exercise of activities in the private
                                                                        security sector which certainly necessitates checks by
         Ð an undertaking established in another                        the public authorities, the carrying of arms is not a
              Member State must obtain authorisation, for               matter within the exclusive competence of the public
              the purpose of which no account is taken of               police services and that argument may thus not serve
              the evidence and guarantees already presented             to show a connection with the exercise of official
              by it for the pursuit of its activity in the              authority for the purposes of Articles 55 and 66 of the
              Member State of establishment, and                        EC Treaty.
    (b) require every person wishing to exercise a
         security activity or provide an internal security              The concepts of public policy and public security, for
         service in Belgium to be issued with an                        the purposes of Articles 56 and 66 of the EC Treaty,
         identification card in accordance with that Law,               do not imply either the existence of an excluded
                                                                        sector', or the possibility of relying on a certain
                                                                        danger'. The Commission considers that the existence
         the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its                of a present, genuine and sufficiently serious threat is
         obligations under Articles 48, 52 and 59 of the                not apparent in this case. The strict control of
         Treaty; and                                                    infrastructure, in particular of premises and registers
                                                                        of arms, can also be carried out abroad. It is enough
                                                                        for the undertaking concerned to give its agreement to
2. Order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                       checks on the spot. In the absence of such agreement,
                                                                        the refusal or withdrawal of any authorisation to
                                                                        provide security services on Belgian territory would be
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                     justifiable.
Ð Restrictions on freedom to provide services (Article 59               Finally, the Commission refers to its interpretative
    of the EC Treaty):                                                  communication concerning the free movement of
                                                                        services across frontiers (1). The Commission is not
                                                                        opposed to the requirement of authorisation or
    The requirement that a firm must have its place of                  approval where the State of establishment does not
    business in Belgium, whilst that may not refer to its               provide any system of authorisation for private
    primary establishment Ð although the Belgian reply                  security firms. However, the position of the Belgian
    rather suggests that it does Ð amounts at least to a                Government would both negate the direct effect of
    requirement that it have a secondary establishment.                 Article 59 of the Treaty and lead to total dependence
    The need to obtain authorisation to carry on the                    on the existence of administrative cooperation or even
    activities of a security firm, and approval in the case             the adoption of a Community act determining the
    of a security systems firm, as provided for in the                  obligations of national authorities in that regard.
    Belgian rules, constitutes in itself a restriction on the
    free movement of services, in particular as regards the
    activities of a security systems firm, for which the                Similarly, the requirement of an identification card
    condition of having a place of business in Belgium                  issued by the Belgian Ministry of the Interior is
    does not apply. Even if the Court of Justice were to                disproportionate. If the police wish to identify persons
    judge that the requirement of authorisation or                      responsible for irregularities in security activities, or if
    approval remained indispensable, Article 59 of the                  a person wishes to report such irregularities, the police
    Treaty still requires, even for professions not regulated           have all the necessary means of identification in the
    at Community level, that the State in which a service               passport or the identity card.
    is to be provided must at least take account of the
    evidence and guarantees already presented by the
    provider for the pursuit of his activity in the Member
    State of establishment.                                          Ð Restriction on freedom of establishment (Article 52 of
                                                                        the EC Treaty):
    As regards the requirement of an identification card,
    the formalities to be completed, the need to apply to               It is clear from the explanations of the Belgian
    the Belgian authorities, often at a considerable                    authorities that a security firm can, in the great
 ---pagebreak--- C 358/10              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                   21.11.98
    majority of cases, select only a Belgian national                   considered (see paragraph 255 of the United Kingdom
    residing for a certain length of time in Belgium, thus              Immigration Rules, House of Commons Paper 395), as
    allowing those authorities to carry out the screening'             compared to a requirement of 12 months residence
    which they deem necessary, but not a person who has                 before such application can be made, as is applied to
    acted as a manager of a comparable undertaking in                   spouses of the United Kingdom nationals and spouses
    another Member State of the European Union. In                      of those present and settled in the United Kingdom
    those circumstances, the requirement of residence                   (paragraph 287 of the United Kingdom Immigration
    constitutes indirect discrimination which could only be             Rules, House of Commons Paper 395) constitute
    justified under Article 56 of the EC Treaty. The                    unlawful discrimination contrary to Article 7(2)
    Commission considers, however, that the restriction                 Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68?
    derives from administrative considerations which are
    not such as to justify it.
                                                                   (1) Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
                                                                       1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the
                                                                       Community (OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2 [SE SER1 68(II)
Ð Restriction on freedom of movement for workers                       p. 475]).
    (Article 48 of the EC Treaty):
    The requirement of residence in Belgium prevents
    workers residing in other countries from being
    engaged by a security firm or a security systems firm,
    or being employed for the purposes of an internal
    security service in an undertaking in Belgium. In              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Appeal,
    response to the argument alleging the need for control,        London, by order of that Court of 13 May 1998, in the
    the Commission reiterates the arguments which it put           case of The Queen against Secretary of State for the
    forward in connection with Article 52 of the EC                  Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu Yiadom
    Treaty.
                                                                                (Case C-357/98)
(1) OJ C 334, 9.12.1993, p. 3.                                                             (98/C 358/19)
                                                                   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                   European Communities by an order of the Court of
                                                                   Appeal, London, of 13 May 1998, which was received at
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Immigration              the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary
Adjudicator, by order of the Adjudicator of 25 September           ruling in the case of The Queen against Secretary of State
1998, in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State         for the Home Department, ex parte: Nana Yaa Konadu
                  for the Home Department                          Yiadom, in the following questions:
                       (Case C-356/98)
                        (98/C 358/18)                              1. Do both Article 8 and Article 9 of Council Directive
                                                                        64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination
                                                                        of special measures concerning the movement and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  residence of foreign nationals which are justified on
European Communities by an order of the Immigration                     grounds of public policy, public security or public
Adjudicator of 25 September 1998, which was received at                 health (OJ English Special Edition 1963Ð4, p. 117
the Court Registry on 1 October 1998, for a preliminary                 and OJ 56, 4.4.1964, p. 850.) apply to decisions
ruling in the case of Arben Kaba against Secretary of State             concerning entry into the territory of a Member State,
for the Home Department, on the following questions:                    or are decisions concerning entry covered solely by the
                                                                        provisions of Article 8?
1. Does the right to apply for indefinite leave to remain
    in the United Kingdom and the right to have that               2. If the answer to the first question is that Article 8, but
    application considered constitute a social advantage'              not Article 9, of Directive 64/221/EEC applies to
    within the meaning of Article 7(2), Regulation (EEC)                decisions concerning entry into the territory of a
    No 1612/68 (1)?                                                     Member State, are the requirements of Article 8
                                                                        satisfied by provisions of national law which grant to
                                                                        the national of a Member State who is refused entry to
2. Does the requirement imposed on the spouses of EC                    another Member State on grounds of public policy a
    nationals to have been resident in the United Kingdom               right of appeal to a court of law which may only be
    for four years before an application for indefinite leave           exercised once that person is no longer physically
    to remain in the United Kingdom may be made and                     present in the Member State concerned?


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 14 June 2001 in Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to implement within the prescribed period)

text:
C 212/2                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          28.7.2001
1.    Articles 2(c) and (d), final indent, and 3 of the Second Council         (Agents: K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam, and, subsequently,
      Directive (88/357/EEC) of 22 June 1988 on the coordination               J.-F. Dobelle and S. Seam), supported by United Kingdom of
      of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to           Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Agent: G. Amodeo, assisted
      direct insurance other than life assurance and laying down               by G. Barling QC) — application for a declaration that, by
      provisions to facilitate the effective exercise of freedom to provide    applying to vehicles used by taxable persons carrying on the
      services and amending Directive 73/239/EEC permit a Member               activity of driving instructors the condition that, in order for
      State to levy insurance tax on a legal person established in             such persons to be able to exercise their right to deduct the
      another Member State in respect of premiums which that legal             value added tax charged on the initial acquisition of those
      person has paid to an insurer, also established in other Member          vehicles, they must be used exclusively for that activity, the
      State, to cover the business risks of its subsidiary or sub-             French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      subsidiary established in the Member State making the levy. It           Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
      makes no difference if the legal person which paid the premiums          17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member
      and the legal person whose business risks are covered are two            States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
      companies in the same group linked by a relationship other               added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1),
      than that of parent and subsidiary company.                              in the version resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of
                                                                               10 April 1995 amending Directive 77/388 and introducing
2.    In interpreting ‘policy-holder’ or ‘Member State in which the            new simplification measures with regard to value added tax —
      risk is situated’ for the purposes of Article 2(d), final indent, of     scope of certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
      Directive 88/357, the way in which the premium relating to               implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
      the risk insured is invoiced or paid within a group of companies         Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
      is immaterial.                                                           Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
                                                                               and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
                                                                               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
                                                                               2001, in which it:
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
                                                                               1.    Dismisses the application;
                                                                               2.    Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay
                                                                                the costs;
                                                                               3.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to bear its own costs.
                                                                               (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Fifth Chamber)
                            of 14 June 2001                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communi-                                                    (Third Chamber)
                       ties v French Republic (1)
                                                                                of 14 June 2001
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —                         in Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communi-
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —                                               ties v Republic of Austria (1)
Deductibility of tax on the acquisition of vehicles used to
carry out taxable transactions — Limitation to vehicles used                   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                 exclusively for driving instruction)
                                                                               Directive 95/30/EC — Protection of workers from risks
                                                                               related to exposure to biological agents at work — Failure to
                            (2001/C 212/03)                                                implement within the prescribed period)
                                                                                (2001/C 212/04)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-345/99: Commission of the European Communities                       In Case C-473/99: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and H. Michard) v French Republic                         (Agent: W. Bogensberger) v Republic of Austria (Agent:
 ---pagebreak--- 28.7.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 212/3
C. Pesendorfer) — application for a declaration that, by not               K. Rispal-Bellanger and S. Seam) — application for a declar-
adopting, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations          ation that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-                prohibition on the right to deduct value added tax on diesel
mission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June 1995 adapting to                     used as fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no value
technical progress Council Directive 90/679/EEC on the                     added tax is deductible after having, on several occasions,
protection of workers from risks related to exposure to                    introduced a partial right to deduct the French Republic has
biological agents at work (seventh individual Directive within             failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(2) of the Sixth
the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) (OJ                  Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
1995 L 155, p. 41), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil           harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
its obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court (Third                     turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamb-                 basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), in the version
er, J.-P. Puissochet and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Rapporteur),                resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,              amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplifi-
has given a judgment on 14 June 2001, in which it:                         cation measures with regard to value added tax — scope of
                                                                           certain exemptions and practical arrangements for
1.    Declares that, by not adopting, within the prescribed period, all    implementing them (OJ 1995 L 102, p. 18) — the Court (Fifth
      the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to     Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the
      comply with Commission Directive 95/30/EC of 30 June                 Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur)
      1995 adapting to technical progress Council Directive                and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate
      90/679/EEC on the protection of workers from risks related to        General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 June
      exposure to biological agents at work (seventh individual            2001, in which it:
      Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive
      89/391/EEC), the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under the Directive;
2.    Orders the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.
                                                                           1.    Declares that by reintroducing from 1 January 1998 a total
                                                                                prohibition on the right to deduct value added tax on diesel
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                         used as fuel for vehicles on the purchase of which no value
                                                                                added tax is deductible, after having introduced a partial right
                                                                                to deduct, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                                under Article 17(2) of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
                                                                                of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                                Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system
                                                                                of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, in the version
                                                                                resulting from Council Directive 95/7/EC of 10 April 1995
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                amending Directive 77/388 and introducing new simplification
                                                                                measures with regard to value added tax — scope of certain
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                       exemptions and practical arrangements for implementing them.
                           of 14 June 2001
in Case C-40/00: Commission of the European Communi-                       2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
                     ties v French Republic (1)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Article 17(2) and (6) of the Sixth VAT Directive —
Reintroduction, after the date of entry into force of the
Directive, of a total abolition of the right to deduct VAT
charged on diesel used as fuel for vehicles and machines on
          the purchase of which no VAT is deductible)                      (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
                           (2001/C 212/05)
                     (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-40/00: Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: E. Traversa and C. Giolito) v French Republic (Agents:


title: Case C-288/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș (Romania) lodged on 12 June 2014  — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

text:
               8.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 303/19

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Timiș (Romania) lodged on 12 June 2014 — Silvia Ciup v Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara
   (Case C-288/14)
   2014/C 303/25
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Tribunalul Timiș

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Silvia Ciup

      Defendant: Administrația Județeană a Finanțelor Publice (AJFP) Timiș — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Timișoara

      Question referred

   Can the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of remedies for infringements of EU law, upheld by the case-law of the Court, and the right to property referred to in Article 17 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law that defer, on the basis of instalments payable over a period of five years, the reimbursement of taxes levied in breach of Community law and reimbursement of interest thereon, such reimbursements having been directed to be made by judgments that became enforceable by 31 December 2015?


title: Case C-552/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'Etat (France) lodged on 11 December 2007 — Commune de Sausheim v Pierre Azelvandre
   (Case C-552/07)
   (2008/C 37/29)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Conseil d'Etat
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Commune de Sausheim

      Respondent: Pierre Azelvandre
   Questions referred

               1.

               Must ‘the location where the release’ of genetically modified organisms ‘will be carried out’ which, under Article 19 of Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), may not be kept confidential, mean the registered parcel of land or a larger geographical area corresponding either to the commune in which the release occurs or to an even greater area such as a Canton or Department?

               2.

               If the location is to be understood as requiring designation of the registered parcel of land, can an exception relating to the protection of public order or other confidential matters protected by law preclude, on the basis of Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, now the European [Union], or of Directive 2003/4/EC (2) of 28 January 2003 on public access to environmental information or of a general principle of Community law, the disclosure of the registered reference number or numbers of the location of the release?

      (1)  OJ 1990 L 117, p. 15.

      (2)  Directive 2003/4/EC of 28 January 2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council on public access to environmental information and repealing Council Directive 90/313/EEC (OJ 2003 L 41, p. 26).


title: Case C-451/12: Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Josune Esteban Garcia v Cachorros Plus CBF SCP

text:
               10.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 175/33

         Order of the President of the Court of 16 January 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Provincial de Salamanca — Spain) — Josune Esteban Garcia v Cachorros Plus CBF SCP
   (Case C-451/12) (1)

   2014/C 175/41
   Language of the case: Spanish
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 399, 22. 12. 2012.


title: Case C-279/05: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Vonk Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuivel (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Cheese — Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Differentiated export refunds — Almost immediate re-exportation from the country of importation — Evidence of abuse — Recovery of payments wrongly made — Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 — Continuous or repeated irregularity)

text:
               24.2.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 42/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 11 January 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)) — Vonk Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuivel
   (Case C-279/05) (1)

   (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Cheese - Articles 16 to 18 of Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Differentiated export refunds - Almost immediate re-exportation from the country of importation - Evidence of abuse - Recovery of payments wrongly made - Second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Continuous or repeated irregularity)
   (2007/C 42/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven (Netherlands)
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vonk Dairy Products BV

      Defendant: Productschap Zuivel
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — College van Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven Interpretation of Articles 16 to 18 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1) in the version in force at the material time — Interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of 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) — Differentiated refunds not due in the case of re-exports by the exporter that constitute an abuse — Determination of the criteria for a finding to that effect — Continuous or repeated irregularity
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               In proceedings for the withdrawal and recovery of differentiated export refunds which have been definitively paid on the basis of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, a finding that those refunds have been wrongly paid must be substantiated by evidence of abuse on the part of the exporter, furnished in accordance with the rules of national law.

               2.

               For the purposes of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, an irregularity is continuous or repeated where it committed by a Community operator who derives economic advantages from a body of similar transactions which infringe the same provision of Community law. The fact that the irregularity relates to a relatively small proportion of all the transactions carried out in a given period and that the transactions in which the irregularity has been detected always concern different consignments is immaterial in this respect.

      (1)  OJ C 257, 15.10.2005.


title: Case T-531/08: Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/48

         Action brought on 2 December 2008 — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya v Commission
   (Case T-531/08)
   (2009/C 32/92)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   Parties

      Applicant: Territorio Histórico de Vizcaya — Diputación Foral de Vizcaya (represented by: I. Sáenz-Cortabarría Fernández and M. Morales Isasi, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               Declaration that the letter from the Directorate General of Competition of the European Commission D/53778 [COMP/H4/NM/ed D(2008) 247], of 2 October 2008, is null and void, in so far as it requires the interest referred to in Decisions 2003/27/EC and 2002/806/EC, of 11 July 2001 (infringement file 2007/2215), to be recovered on a compound basis; and

               —

               An order that the Commission should pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The pleas in law and main arguments are those put forward in Case T-529/08 Diputación Foral de Álava v Commission.


title: Case T-620/14: Order of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — Diapharm v Commission (Action for failure to act — Consumer protection — Health claims made on foods — Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 — Botanical substances — Time-limit for bringing an action — No legal interest in bringing proceedings — Act not amenable to review — Inadmissibility)

text:
               16.11.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 381/33

         Order of the General Court of 16 September 2015 — Diapharm v Commission
   (Case T-620/14) (1)

   ((Action for failure to act - Consumer protection - Health claims made on foods - Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 - Botanical substances - Time-limit for bringing an action - No legal interest in bringing proceedings - Act not amenable to review - Inadmissibility))
   (2015/C 381/37)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG (Münster, Germany) (represented by: M. Weidner, N. Hußmann and T. Guttau, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: M. Wilderspin and S. Grünheid, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application seeking a declaration that the Commission failed to act in that it unlawfully refrained from ordering the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to evaluate the health claims relating to botanical substances as a condition prior to the adoption of the definitive list of authorised health claims in accordance with Article 13(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 December 2006 on nutrition and health claims made on foods (OJ 2006 L 404, p. 9).

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               Diapharm GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 409, 17.11.2014.


21.4.2001             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 118/25
       Removal from the register of Case C-232/00 (1)                        Removal from the register of Case C-327/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/52)                                                       (2001/C 118/55)
By order of 4 October 2000 the President of the Court of              By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-232/00: Commission of the                 from the register of Case C-327/99: [reference for a preliminary
European Communities v Hellenic Republic.                             ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport
                                                                      SpA v New Times International Transport Service Co. Ltd.
(1) OJ C 247 of 26.8.2000.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-243/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-362/99 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/53)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/56)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-243/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: FILA Sport           from the register of Case C-362/99: [reference for a preliminary
SpA v Beijing Metals & Minerals Import & Export Corp.                 ruling from the Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: SEIKO
                                                                      Kabushiki Kaisha v Mohammed Ibrahim.
(1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
                                                                      (1) OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
       Removal from the register of Case C-284/99 (1)
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case C-250/00 (1)
                        (2001/C 118/54)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/57)
By order of 5 October 2000 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal           By order of 6 October 2000 the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-284/99: [reference for a preliminary      Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal
ruling from Landesgericht Korneuburg (Austria)]: New Yorker           from the register of Case C-250/00: Commission of the
S.H.K. Jeans GmbH v Ing. Jaroslav Kupco.                              European Communities v Portugal.
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.                                            (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 15 July 2004 in Case C-119/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 2000/52/EC — Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings)

text:
               11.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 228/12

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 15 July 2004
   in Case C-119/03: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 2000/52/EC - Transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings)
   (2004/C 228/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-119/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: G. Rozet) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Lemaire) — application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings or, in any event by failing to notify them to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, S. von Bahr (Rapporteur) and R. Silva de Lapuerta, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 July 2004 in which it:

               1)

               declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 amending Directive 80/723/EEC on the transparency of financial relations between Member States and public undertakings, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2)

               orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 112 of 10.5.2003.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 2 October 2003 in Case C-198/99 P: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European producers of beams)

text:
15.11.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                C 275/3
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       N. Lacalle Mangas): Appeal against the judgment of the Court
                                                                             of First Instance of the European Communities (Second
                          (Fifth Chamber)                                    Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March 1999 in Case
                                                                             T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission [1999] ECR II-645, seeking
                        of 2 October 2003                                    to have that judgment set aside, the other party to the
                                                                             proceedings being: Commission of the European Communities
in Case C-194/99 P: Thyssen Stahl AG v Commission of                         (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by J. Rivas de
                 the European Communities (1)                                Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
                                                                             President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola,
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                      P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl,
                        producers of beams)                                  Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for
                                                                             the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October 2003, in
                         (2003/C 275/05)                                     which it:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                             1.    Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published             11 March 1999 in Case T-156/94 Aristrain v Commission
                   in the European Court Reports)                                  in so far as the Court of First Instance declared the application
                                                                                for annulment of Commission Decision 94/215/ECSC of
                                                                                16 February 1994 relating to a proceeding pursuant to
In Case C-194/99 P, Thyssen Stahl AG, established in Duisburg                      Article 65 of the ECSC Treaty concerning agreements and
(Germany) (represented by F. Montag): Appeal against the                           concerted practices engaged in by European producers of beams
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                            to be unfounded as regards the order that Siderúrgica Aristrain
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of                              Madrid SL pay a fine which also took into account the conduct
11 March 1999 in Case T-141/94 Thyssen Stahl v Commission                          of Aristrain Olaberría SL;
[1999] ECR II-347, seeking to have that judgment set aside in
part, the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of                2.    Dismisses the remainder of the appeal;
the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils,
assisted by H.-J. Freund), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed               3.    Refers the case back to the Court of First Instance;
of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward,
A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges;                 4.    Reserves the costs.
C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
2 October 2003, in which it:                                                 (1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2.    Orders Thyssen Stahl AG to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                of 2 October 2003
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                             in Case C-198/99 P: Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA
                                                                             (Ensidesa) v Commission of the European Communities (1)
                        of 2 October 2003
in Case C-196/99 P: Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL v                        (Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European
       Commission of the European Communities (1)                                                     producers of beams)
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                                                (2003/C 275/07)
                        producers of beams)
                         (2003/C 275/06)                                                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
                   (Language of the case: Spanish)                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             In Case C-198/99 P, Empresa Nacional Siderúrgica SA (Enside-
In Case C-196/99 P, Siderúrgica Aristrain Madrid SL estab-                   sa), established in Avilés (Spain), (represented by S. Martínez
lished in Madrid (Spain) (represented by A. Creus Carreras and               Lage and J. Pérez-Bustamante Köster): Appeal against the
 ---pagebreak--- C 275/4                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            15.11.2003
judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European                    1.    Dismisses the appeal;
Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
11 March 1999 in Case T-157/94 Ensidesa v Commission                       2.    Orders Corus UK Ltd to pay the costs.
[1999] ECR II-707, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being: Commission of the
                                                                           (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils),
assisted by J. Rivas de Andrés), the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber,
D.A.O. Edward, A. La Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von
Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet,
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 2 October 2003, in which it:                                                             JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 30 September 2003
1.    Dismisses the appeal;
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P: Freistaat Sachsen,
2.    Orders Empresa Siderúrgica SA (Ensidesa) to pay the costs.
                                                                           Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH v Com-
                                                                                mission of the European Communities (1)
(1) OJ C 299 of 16.10.1999.
                                                                           (State aid — Compensation for the economic disadvantages
                                                                           caused by the division of Germany — Serious disturbance in
                                                                           the economy of a Member State — Regional economic
                                                                           development — Community framework for State aid in the
                                                                                motor vehicle industry)
                                                                                (2003/C 275/09)
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                         (Fifth Chamber)                                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                       of 2 October 2003
                                                                           In Joined Cases C-57/00 P and C-61/00 P, Freistaat Sachsen
in Case C-199/99 P: Corus UK Ltd v Commission of the                       (represented by J. Sedemund) with an address for service in
                  European Communities (1)                                 Luxembourg (C-57/00 P), Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen
                                                                           Sachsen GmbH (represented by M. Schütte) with an address
(Appeal — Agreements and concerted practices — European                    for service in Luxembourg (C-61/00 P): Appeals against the
                       producers of beams)                                 judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                           Communities (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of
                                                                           15 December 1999 in Joined Cases T-132/96 and T-143/96
                        (2003/C 275/08)                                    Freistaat Sachsen and Others v Commission [1999] ECR II-
                                                                           3663, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other parties
                                                                           to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
                   (Language of the case: English)                         Communities (Agent: K.-D. Borchardt, assisted by M. Núñez-
                                                                           Müller) with an address for service in Luxembourg, Federal
                                                                           Republic of Germany (Agent: T. Oppermann) and United
                                                                           Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Court,
In Case C-199/99 P, Corus UK Ltd, formerly British Steel plc,              composed of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissoch-
established in London (United Kingdom), (represented by                    et, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen and C.W.A. Timmermans
P. Collins and M. Levitt, solicitors): Appeal against the judg-            (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann, V. Skouris,
ment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-               F. Macken (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
ties (Second Chamber, Extended Composition) of 11 March                    Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
1999 in Case T-151/94 British Steel v Commission [1999]                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
ECR II-629, seeking to have that judgment set aside, the other             30 September 2003, in which it:
party to the proceedings being: Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: J. Currall and W. Wils, assisted by                   1.    Dismisses the appeals;
J. Flynn, barrister), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
M. Wathelet, President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward, A. La                2.    Orders the Freistaat Sachsen to pay the costs in Case C-57/
Pergola, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-                  00 P;
Hackl, Advocate General; M.-F. Contet, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 2 October               3.    Orders Volkswagen AG and Volkswagen Sachsen GmbH to
2003, in which it:                                                               pay the costs in Case C-61/00 P;