title: Case C-293/15 P: Appeal brought on 15 June 2015 by Slovenská pošta a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-556/08: Slovenská pošta v Commission

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/16

         Appeal brought on 15 June 2015 by Slovenská pošta a.s. against the judgment of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) delivered on 25 March 2015 in Case T-556/08: Slovenská pošta v Commission
   (Case C-293/15 P)
   (2015/C 302/21)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Slovenská pošta a.s. (represented by: O. W. Brouwer and A.A.J. Pliego Selie, advocaten)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Commission, Slovak Republic, Cromwell a.s., Slovak Mail Services a.s., Prvá Doručovacia, a.s., ID Marketing Slovensko s.r.o. (formerly TNT Post Slovensko s.r.o.)

      Form of order sought

   The Appellant respectfully requests the Court of Justice to:

               1)

               set aside the contested judgment either in part or in full and pass final judgment on the appeal, annulling the contested decision in full or in part, or — in the alternative — refer the case back to the General Court;
               and

               2)

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice including the costs of the intervening parties.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court dismissed the application for annulment in relation to the Commission of the European Union’s decision of 7 October 2008 on the Slovakian postal legislation relating to hybrid mail services C(2008) 5912, addressed to the Slovak Republic.
   Slovenská pošta a.s. respectfully requests the Court of Justice to:

               (i)

               Set aside, in whole or in part, the aforementioned judgment of the General Court on the following grounds:

                           i.

                              First Ground: Errors of law, application of an erroneous standard of proof and misallocation of the burden of proof in finding that the Slovak Republic infringed Article 86(1) read in conjunction with Article 82EC;

                                       a.

                                       Errors of law in finding that providing an exclusive right can in itself constitute an infringement of Article 86(1) EC read in conjunction with Article 82 EC;

                                       b.

                                       Errors of law, applying an erroneous standard of proof and misallocating the burden of proof in finding that the Slovak Republic has infringed Article 86(1) in conjunction with Article 82 EC by limiting output to end-users.

                           ii.

                              Second Ground: Errors of law, insufficient standard of review and distortion of evidence in reviewing and accepting the relevant market definition submitted by the Commission of the European Union;

                                       a.

                                       Error of law and insufficient standard of review in accepting that a relevant market of integrated hybrid mail services could be defined based on the (alleged) existence of demand and supply of a service alone;

                                       b.

                                       Distortion of the evidence and application of insufficient standard of review in finding that prevailing demand on the market could be derived from the evidence submitted by the Commission.

               (ii)

               Deliver final judgment on the appeal, annulling the contested decision in full or in part, or — in the alternative — refer the case back to the General Court;

               (iii)

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings before the General Court and the Court of Justice including the costs of the intervening parties.


title: Action brought on 4 November 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic (Case C-391/98)

text:
C 397/24              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       19.12.98
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                           Ð in so far as may be necessary, annul the
directives into national law before the expiry of the period                          decision adopted by the Commission on
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those                                   3 February 1997 expressly rejecting the
measures immediately to the Commission. That period                                   appellant's complaint;
expired on 31 December 1996 without the Hellenic
Republic having communicated to the Commission
                                                                            (c) order the defendant to pay all the costs of both
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national
                                                                                sets of proceedings.
law.
(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994, p. 34.                                       Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                       Ð Erroneous legal characterisation of the appellant's
                                                                            request, giving rise to incorrect legal consequences:
                                                                            the appellant's request, although based on
                                                                            Article 31(2) of the Staff Regulations of officials, was
                                                                            intended to secure an assessment of his qualifications
Appeal brought on 2 November 1998 by Hans Gevaert
                                                                            with a view to a possible revision of his current
against the order made on 19 August 1998 by the First
                                                                            classification, not of his initial classification, the latter
Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                            being neither directly nor indirectly in issue.
Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans Gevaert
    and the Commission of the European Communities
                       (Case C-389/98 P)                               Ð (In the alternative) erroneous legal characterisation of
                                                                            the decision of 7 February 1996 (Administrative
                         (98/C 397/42)                                      Notices of 27.3.1996) by which the Commission
                                                                            amended its decision concerning the criteria
                                                                            applicable to appointment in grade and classification
An appeal against the order made on 19 August 1998 by                       in step upon recruitment; breach of the principle of
the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                     equality of treatment and infringement of Article 5(3)
European Communities in Case T-160/97 between Hans                          of the Staff Regulations of officials: to reserve the
Gevaert and the Commission of the European                                  benefit of the Commission's decision of 7 February
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                      1996 solely to officials appointed after it entered into
the European Communities on 2 November 1998 by Hans                         force, notwithstanding that those officials would in
Gevaert, represented by Nicolas LhoeÈst, of the Brussels                    the future be working in the same institution
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                       alongside other officials classified in accordance with
Offices of the Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                             earlier (less favourable) criteria, would be wholly
Cessange.                                                                   contrary to the principle of euqality of treatment.
The appellant claims that the Court should:                            Ð Contradictory statements in the grounds of the
                                                                            judgment.
1.   declare the appeal admissible and well founded;                   (1) Order of 19.8.1998 in Case T-160/97 (OJ C 327, 24.10.1998,
                                                                           p. 24).
2.   consequently:
     (a) set aside the order made (1);
     (b) itself determine the proceedings and, allowing the            Action brought on 4 November 1998 by the Commission
          appellant's initial application:                             of the European Communities against the Hellenic
                                                                                Republic
          Ð rule that the appellant's request for                                              (Case C-391/98)
              consideration to be given to the possible
              application of Article 31(2) of the Staff                                         (98/C 397/43)
              Regulations,      with    a      view     to    his
              reclassification in grade with effect from
              5 October 1995, is admissible;                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
          Ð consequently,        annul     the    Commission's         on 4 November 1998 by the Commission of the European
              decision of 26 August 1996 rejecting the                 Communities, represented by Maria Kondou-Durande, of
              appellant's request for an examination of the            its Legal Service, with an address for service in
              possible application of Article 31(2) of the             Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of
              Staff Regulations;                                       its Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
 ---pagebreak--- 19.12.98              EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 397/25
The Commission claims that the Court should:                              light passenger vehicles taking account only of the
                                                                          cylinder capacity of the vehicle, subject to
                                                                          deduction from the levy of a percentage of 18 %,
                                                                          24 %, 32 %, 41 %, 49 %, 55 %, 61 % or 67 %
Ð declare that, by not adopting within the time-limit laid
                                                                          (depending whether the imported vehicle has been
     down the laws, regulations and administrative
                                                                          in use for between one and two, two and three,
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
                                                                          three and four, four and five, five and six, six and
     93/3/EEC (1) of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of
                                                                          seven or seven and eight years) of what would be
     foodstuffs, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                          payable on a new vehicle (imported or bought on
     obligations under that directive;
                                                                          the domestic market) and where for a vehicle
                                                                          which has been used for more than eight years
                                                                          33 % of the car tax which would be payable on a
Ð order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                           new vehicle (imported or bought on the domestic
                                                                          market) has to be paid without, in either of such
                                                                          situations, account being taken of all the other
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       factors which influence the value of a car, such as
                                                                          kilometrage, strate of upkeep and the model,
                                                                          among others, guarantee perfect neutrality of
                                                                          domestic taxation as regards competition between
The Member States are required by the binding character                   domestic and imported products (in this case cars)
of the third paragraph of Article 189 and of Article 5 of                 and is it compatible with the first paragraph of
the EC Treaty to adopt the measures needed to transpose                   Article 95 of the EC Treaty?
directives into national law before the expiry of the period
laid down for that purpose and to communicate those
measures immediately to the Commission. That period
expired on 14 December 1995 without the Hellenic                       2. It is compatible with the first paragraph of
Republic having communicated to the Commission                            Article 95 of the EC Treaty for national legislation
provisions transposing the directive at issue into national               to provide that the tax levied on an imported
law.                                                                      product and the tax levied on a similar national
                                                                          product are to be calculated differently and
                                                                          according to different procedures: the car tax on
(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993, p. 1.
                                                                          the imported use vehicle is calculated on the basis
                                                                          of its cylinder capacity, subject to a deduction
                                                                          based solely its years of use whereas in
                                                                          transactions on the national market involving a
                                                                          similar use vehicle no car tax is paid (since, being
                                                                          a single-stage tax, it is paid only once when the
                                                                          vehicle is put into circulation, in new condition),
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo                         when the fact is that its price may still incorporate
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of                   a residual portion of that tax if it has not been in
that court of 7 October 1998, in the case of MinisteÂrio                  use for more than about four to five years, that
   Publico and António Gomes Valente v. Fazenda PuÂblica                  portion always being of uncertain amount, and
                                                                          not being separate from the purchase price, or
                       (Case C-393/98)                                    separable from it, because, amongst other reasons,
                                                                          the purchase of a used vehicle in Portugal is not
                        (98/C 397/44)                                     subject to car tax?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       3. In the light of the first paragraph of Article 95 of
European Communities by a judgment of the Second
                                                                          the EC Treaty, may it be considered that such a
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                          system cannot, not even in only a few cases, lead
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 7 October 1998, which
                                                                          to higher taxation of the imported product and
was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 1998,
                                                                          that the system is regulated in such a way that the
for a preliminary ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio Publico
                                                                          possibility is always concluded of an imported
and António Gomes Valente v. Fazenda PuÂblica, on the
                                                                          vehicle being taxed at a higehr level than a similar
following questions:
                                                                          national vehicle?
(a) Are the questions raised in these proceedings by the
      appellant and set out below relevant? What is the                4. May, in the light of Community law, such a
      answer to those questions under Community law?                      system be regarded as transparent to the requisite
                                                                          extent so as to make it possible to determine
                                                                          objectively whether the fiscal charge on an
      1. Does legislation, like the Portuguese legislation,               imported car exceeds that levied on a similar
         which imposes a fixed-rate levy on imported used                 national car?


title: Case C-39/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG) (Reference for a preliminary ruling — State aid — Article 107(1) TFEU — Sale of agricultural land by public authorities — National provision allowing the competent authorities to object to the sale of agricultural land where the price offered is considered ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the market value — Advantage granted to certain undertakings or for the production of certain goods — Private investor test — Determination of the ‘market value’)

text:
               14.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 302/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 July 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany)) — proceedings brought by Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)
   (Case C-39/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - State aid - Article 107(1) TFEU - Sale of agricultural land by public authorities - National provision allowing the competent authorities to object to the sale of agricultural land where the price offered is considered ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the market value - Advantage granted to certain undertakings or for the production of certain goods - Private investor test - Determination of the ‘market value’))
   (2015/C 302/05)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Party to the main proceedings

   Bodenverwertungs- und -verwaltungs GmbH (BVVG)

      Joined parties: Thomas Erbs, Ursula Erbs, Landkreis Jerichower Land

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 107(1) TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, for the purposes of safeguarding the interests of agricultural holdings, effectively prohibits an emanation of the State from selling agricultural land to the highest bidder in a public call for tenders, where the competent local authority considers that his bid is grossly disproportionate to the estimated value of that land, cannot be classified as ‘State aid’, provided that the application of that rule results in a price which is as close as possible to the market value of the agricultural land concerned, that being a matter for the referring court to ascertain.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case T-77/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission
   (Case T-77/06) (1)

   (2008/C 301/112)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-35/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2013 — ASS.I.CA. and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others

text:
               23.3.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 86/13

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italy) lodged on 24 January 2013 — ASS.I.CA. and Kraft Foods Italia SpA v Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others
   (Case C-35/13)
   2013/C 86/21
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Corte Suprema di Cassazione

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellants: ASS.I.CA. — Associazione Industriali delle Carni, Kraft Foods Italia SpA

      Respondents: Associazioni fra produttori per la tutela del ‘Salame Felino’ and Others

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should Article 2 of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 (1) be interpreted as precluding a producers’ association from being able to claim the right exclusively to use, within the [European Union], a designation of geographical origin used within a Member State to designate a specific type of salami sausage, without having first obtained a legally binding measure from that Member State establishing the boundaries of the geographical area of production, the rules and regulations governing production, and any requirements which producers may have to satisfy in order to be entitled to use that designation?

               2.

               In the light of Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92, which set of rules should be applied within the [European Union] market and also within the market of a Member State to a geographical designation which has not obtained the registration referred to in that regulation?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July 1992 on the protection of geographical indications and designations of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (OJ 1992 L 208, p. 1).


title: Case C-161/02: Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

text:
C 169/18                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     13.7.2002
1.2.2.2. Can Austrian hauliers too rely on the fact that the              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Republic of
(excessive) rate for the full itinerary discriminates against them        Austria Oberster Gerichtshof by order of that Court of
in comparison with road users who use only partial itineraries            26 March 2002 in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
of that motorway?                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
1.3.      If questions 1.1 and 1.2 are answered in the affirmative:                                 (Case C-160/02)
1.3.1. Is the Judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-21/                                        (2002/C 169/33)
94 (3) European Parliament v Council of the European Union,
in which it was held that all the effects of Directive 93/89 were
to be preserved until the Council had adopted a new directive,
to be interpreted as meaning that the effects are to be preserved         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
until the Member States have transposed the new directive or,             European Communities by order of the Republic of Austria
as the case may be, the time limit for transposition has expired?         Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) of 26 March 2002,
                                                                          received at the Court Registry on 30 April 2002, for a
                                                                          preliminary ruling in the case of Friedrich Skalka against
1.3.2. If question 1.3.1 is answered in the negative: In the
                                                                          Sozialversicherungsanstalt der gewerblichen Wirtschaft on the
period from 17 June 1999 to 1 July 2000, are the Member
                                                                          following question:
States under an obligation to have regard to the new Directive,
that is to say does it have advance effects which are required
to be observed?                                                           Is Article 10a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) of the
                                                                          Council on the application of social security schemes to
                                                                          employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
(1) OJ L 279 (1993), p. 32.                                               of their families moving within the Community, as amended
(2) OJ L 187 (1999), p. 42.                                               and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of
(3) [1995], ECR I-1827.                                                   2 December 1996 (2), in conjunction with Annex IIa, to be
                                                                          interpreted as meaning that the compensatory supplement
                                                                          provided for under the Bundesgesetz vom 11. Oktober 1978
                                                                          über die Sozialversicherung der in der gewerblichen Wirtschaft
                                                                          selbständig Erwerbstätigen (Federal Law of 11 October 1978
                                                                          on Social Insurance for Persons engaged in Trade and Com-
                                                                          merce — ‘the GSVG’) falls within its scope and therefore
                                                                          constitutes a special non-contributory benefit within the
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the House of Lords                  meaning of Article 4(2a) of the regulation, so that only the
by order of that court dated 13 December 2001, in the                     coordinating provisions laid down by Article 10a of the
case of Gregory Paul Turner against 1) Felix Fareed Ismail                regulation are applicable to a person, such as the claimant,
           Grovit, 2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A.                     who, after 1 June 1992, fulfilled the conditions for the granting
                                                                          of that benefit?
                          (Case C-159/02)
                                                                          (1) OJ L 149 (1971), p. 2.
                          (2002/C 169/32)                                 (2) OJ L 28 (1997), p. 1.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the House of Lords
dated 13 December 2001, which was received at the Court
Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
of Gregory Paul Turner and 1) Felix Fareed Ismail Grovit,                 Action brought on 30 April 2002 by the Commission of
2) Harada Ltd, 3) Changepoint S.A. on the following question:              the European Communities against the French Republic
‘Is it inconsistent with the Convention on Jurisdiction and the                                     (Case C-161/02)
Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters
signed at Brussels on 27 September 1968 (subsequently                                               (2002/C 169/34)
acceded to by the United Kingdom) to grant restraining orders
against defendants who are threatening to commence or
continue legal proceedings in another Convention country
when those defendants are acting in bad faith with the intent             An action against the French Republic was brought before the
and purpose of frustrating or obstructing proceedings properly            Court of Justice of the European Communities on 30 April
before the English courts?’                                               2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                          represented by G. Valero Jordana and J. Adda, acting as Agents,
                                                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg.
 ---pagebreak--- 13.7.2002               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 169/19
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Action brought on 8 May 2002 by the Commission of the
the Court should:                                                        European Communities against the Portuguese Republic
—     declare that, by failing to communicate measures trans-
      posing into national law the provisions of Directive                                       (Case C-171/02)
      1999/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the
      Council of 13 December 1999 relating to the availability
      of consumer information on fuel economy and CO2                                           (2002/C 169/36)
      emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger
      cars (1), or at any rate by not informing the Commission
      fully thereof, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under that directive;
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought before
                                                                        the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 May
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.                       2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                        represented by Maria Patakia and António Caeiros, acting as
                                                                        Agents.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The time-limit for transposition expired on 18 January 2001.
                                                                        I.   Declare that:
(1) OJ L 12 of 18 January 2000, p. 16.
                                                                             1.   inasmuch as the system for issuing authorisations
                                                                                by the Ministro de Administração Interna requires
                                                                                that foreign undertakings, in the private security
                                                                                services sector, wishing to pursue in Portugal activi-
                                                                                ties in the security sector in respect of persons and
                                                                                property:
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Oberster
Gerichtshof (Austria) by order of that Court of 9 April                           (a)   must have their main offices in or be estab-
2002 in the case of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne                               lished in Portugal;
Maier, (2) Christian Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki
                               Karan
                                                                                (b) cannot rely on the guarantees already submit-
                          (Case C-168/02)                                               ted in their Member State of origin;
                         (2002/C 169/35)                                          (c)   must have legal personality;
                                                                                (d) must have a specific amount of capital;
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Oberster Gerichtshof
                                                                             2.   inasmuch as the employees of foreign security
(Supreme Court) of 9 April 2002, received at the Court
                                                                                undertakings, in the private security services sector,
Registry on 6 May 2002, for a preliminary ruling in the case
                                                                                wishing to pursue in Portugal security services
of Rudolf Kronhofer against (1) Marianne Maier, (2) Christian
                                                                                activities in respect of persons and property must be
Möller, (3) Wirich Hofius and (4) Zeki Karan on the following
                                                                                in possession of an employer’s identity card issued
question:
                                                                                by the Portuguese authorities;
Is the expression ‘place where the harmful event occurred’
contained in Article 5(3) of the Convention on jurisdiction                  3.   inasmuch as work in the private security sector is not
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial                          covered by the Community system of recognition of
matters of 27.9.1968 (‘the Convention’) to be construed in                        professional qualifications;
such a way that, in the case of purely financial damage arising
on the investment of part of the injured party’s assets, it also
encompasses in any event the place where the injured party is                the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
domiciled if the investment was made in another Member                       under Articles 39, 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and
State of the Community?                                                      Directive 92/51/EEC (1);
                                                                        II.  Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


               23.3.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 90/7

         Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett dated 21 June 2016 in the case of Netfonds Holding ASA m.fl. v Staten v/Finansdepartementet
   (Case E-8/16)
   (2017/C 90/08)
   A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter dated 21 June 2016 from Oslo tingrett (the Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 27 June 2016, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Netfonds Holding ASA m.fl. v Staten v/Finansdepartementet on the following questions:

               1.

               Do the issue rules in Section 4 of the Commercial Banks Act and Section 2-1 of the Insurance Activity Act, understood as a requirement that three quarters of the shares in new banks and insurance companies must be subscribed without preferential rights (offered as a public issue), constitute a restriction under Article 31 EEA, Article 36 EEA or Article 40 EEA, provided that the application for a licence is not just for a niche activity?

                           a.

                           Assuming that the rules constitute a restriction within the meaning of the EEA Agreement: Do the rules pursue a legitimate public objective?

                           b.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction suitable within the meaning of EEA law?

                           c.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction necessary within the meaning of EEA law?

               2.

               Do the issue rules in Section 4 of the Commercial Banks Act and Section 2-1 of the Insurance Activity Act, understood as a requirement that three quarters of the shares in new banks and insurance companies must be subscribed by persons other than the promoters, constitute a restriction under Article 31 EEA, Article 36 EEA or Article 40 EEA, provided that the application for a licence is not just for a niche activity?

                           a.

                           Assuming that such rules constitute a restriction within the meaning of the EEA Agreement: Do the rules pursue a legitimate public objective?

                           b.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction suitable within the meaning of EEA law?

                           c.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction necessary within the meaning of EEA law?

               3.

               Does an established administrative practice whereby individuals or enterprises are not authorised to own more than 20 to 25 per cent of the shares in financial institutions, except in those cases where the law itself authorises the establishment of a financial group or where the financial institution will engage in what is referred to a niche activity only, constitute a restriction under Article 31 EEA, Article 36 EEA or Article 40 EEA, provided that the application for a licence is not just for a niche activity?

                           a.

                           Assuming that such an established administrative practice constitutes a restriction within the meaning of the EEA Agreement: Is the restriction in pursuance of a legitimate public objective?

                           b.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction suitable within the meaning of EEA law?

                           c.

                           Assuming that the restriction pursues a legitimate public objective: Is such a restriction necessary within the meaning of EEA law?


title: Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01: References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy (C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini (C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00); Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)

text:
C 118/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                      21.4.2001
before that court between Masterfoods Ltd and HB Ice Cream                  Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
Ltd and between HB Ice Cream Ltd and Masterfoods Ltd,                       of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00);
trading as ‘Mars Ireland’ — on the interpretation of Articles 85,           Associazione dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del
86 and 222 of the EC Treaty (now Articles 81 EC, 82 EC and                  Granducato ed altre Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of
295 EC), — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias,                the Treasury, the Budget and Planning and the Regione
President, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and                       Toscana (Case C-494/00); Associazione Agricola Produtto-
V. Skouris (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward,                         ri Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others v AIMA and the Ministry
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen             of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-496/00);
and F. Macken, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate General;                         Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others v AIMA and
L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a                   the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
judgment on 14 December 2000, in which it has ruled:                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and
                                                                            the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning
                                                                                (C-21/01)
Where a national court is ruling on an agreement or practice the
compatibility of which with Articles 85(1) and 86 of the EC Treaty
(now Articles 81(1) EC and Article 82 EC) is already the subject of
a Commission decision, it cannot take a decision running counter to         (Cases C-483/00, C-485/00 to C-488/00, C-492/00 to
that of the Commission, even if the latter’s decision conflicts with a              C-494/00, C-496/00, C-500/00 and C-21/01)
decision given by a national court of first instance. If the addressee of
the Commission decision has, within the period prescribed in the fifth
paragraph of Article 173 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
the fifth paragraph of Article 230 EC), brought an action for
annulment of that decision, it is for the national court to decide
whether to stay proceedings pending final judgment in that action for
annulment or in order to refer a question to the Court for a
preliminary ruling.                                                                                (2001/C 118/12)
(1) OJ C 378 of 5.12.1998.
                                                                            References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                            European Communities by orders of 6 July 2000 of the
                                                                            Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
                                                                            the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                            ruling in the cases of Azienda Agricola Nardoni di Benedetto
                                                                            Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato
                                                                            Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
                                                                            and Planning (Case C-483/00); Azienda Agricola Antonio
                                                                            Tonon v AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of
                                                                            the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-485/00); Azienda
                                                                            Agricola Beniamino Brutti, by Mario Zanetti and Others v
                                                                            AIMA, the other party being the Ministry of the Treasury,
                                                                            the Budget and Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa
References for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                        Agricola Latte 2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l.
Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by orders of that                     v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
court of 6 July 2000 in the cases of Azienda Agricola                       (C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini
Nardoni di Benedetto Nardoni v Azienda di Stato per gli                     (C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);
Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry                     Ferdinando Pavan and Others v AIMA and the Ministry of the
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (Case C-483/00);                   Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-493/00); Associazione
Azienda Agricola Antonio Tonon v AIMA, the other                            dei Produttori di Latte delle Terre del Granducato ed altre
party being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                    Aziende v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget
Planning (C-485/00); Azienda Agricola Beniamino Brutti,                     and Planning and the Regione Toscana (Case C-494/00);
by Mario Zanetti and Others v AIMA, the other party                         Associazione Agricola Produttori Castellani s.c.a.r.l. and Others
being the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and                          v AIMA and the Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and
Planning (Case C-486/00), also Cooperativa Agricola Latte                   Planning (C-496/00); Aziende Agricole Pietro Baita and Others
2001 and Others; Cooperativa Nuova Latte s.r.l. v AIMA                      v AIMA and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy
and the Ministry of Agricultural and Forestry Policy                        (C-500/00), and Giorgio Accarini and Others v AIMA and the
(C-487/00); Azienda Agricola Fermo and Gabriele Borini                      Ministry of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning (C-21/01)
(C-488/00); Giuseppe de Marchi and Others (C-492/00);                       on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- 21.4.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 118/9
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                If not:
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
                                                                            1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?
                                                                            provide that derogations may be made from the periods
                                                                            prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of
If not:                                                                     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
                                                                            in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
                                                                            provisions?
(2) Are the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                (3) May Regulations No 3950/92 and 536/93 be interpreted
     (EEC) No 534/93 of 9 March 1993 valid, in the light of                 as meaning that the individual reference quantity need
     Article 33 (ex 39) of the Treaty, in so far as they do not             not necessarily be notified separately to each producer,
     provide that derogations may be made from the periods                  but may be communicated in other ways such as the
     prescribed by those provisions for the allocation of                   publication of notices?
     individual reference quantities, for adjustments and levies
     in cases of administrative or judicial challenge to those
     provisions?
                                                                       (1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
                                                                       (2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
(1) OJ L 405 of 31.12.1992, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 57 of 10.3.1993, p. 12.
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio by order of that
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale                    court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Aziende Agricole
Amministrativo Regionale per il. Lazio by judgment of                  Visentin and Others v Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi
that court of 6 July 2000 in the case of Carlo Balestreri              nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA), the other parties to the
against Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato                proceedings being Ind. Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli
Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry of the Treasury, the                                             and Others
Budget and Planning, the other party being Parmalat SpA
                                                                                (Case C-495/00)
                        (Case C-484/00)
                                                                                (2001/C 118/14)
                        (2001/C 118/13)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 European Communities by order of 6 July 2000 of the
European Communities by judgment of 6 July 2000 of the                 Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at
Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio, received at           the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary
the Court Registry on 29 December 2000, for a preliminary              ruling in the case of Aziende Agricole Visentin and Others v
ruling in the case of Carlo Balestreri against Azienda di Stato        Azienda di Stato per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo
per gli Interventi nel Mercato Agricolo (AIMA) and the Ministry        (AIMA), the other parties to the proceedings being Ind.
of the Treasury, the Budget and Planning, the other party being        Caseificio Silvio Belladelli & Figli and Others on the following
Parmalat SpA, on the following questions:                              questions:
(1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of                (1) May the provisions contained in Articles 1 and 4 of
     Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December                 Council Regulation (EEC) No 3950/92 (1) of 28 December
     1992 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation                     P92 and Articles 3 and 4 of Commission Regulation
     (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as                  (EEC) No 534/93 (2) of 9 March 1993 be interpreted as
     meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or             meaning that it is possible, in cases of administrative or
     judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate               judicial challenge to the relevant measures, to derogate
     from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of                  from the time-limits prescribed for the allocation of
     quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?                    quotas and the operation of adjustments and levies?


30 . 12. 95           HENI                   Official Journal of the European Communities                               No C 351 / 11
        specific area related payment on a farmer whose area            from the register of Case C-98/95 : Commission of the
        actually determined is found to be less than that               European Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium .
        declared in the aid application when the difference
        more than 20 % but when no false intention or serious           (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
        negligence has been found ?
(') OJ No L 391 , 31 . 12 . 1992 , p . 36 .
( 2 ) OJ No L 156 , 7 . 7. 1995 , p . 27 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C- 113/95 ( )
                                                                                95/C 351 /21 )
         Removal from the register of Case C-14/95 ( )                  By order of 4 October 1995 the President of the Court of
                                                                        Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 / 19                              from the register of Case C- 113/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Italian Republic .
By order of 26 September 1995 the President of the Sixth
Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European                         (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
C-14/95 : Commission of the European Communities v.
Kingdom of Belgium .
(') O J No C 54 , 4 . 3 . 1995 .
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-125/95 ( )
                                                                                ( 95/C 351 /22 )
                                                                        By order of 24 October 1995 the President of the Court of
         Removal from the register of Case C-98/95 ( )                  Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
                           ( 95/C 351 /20 )                             from the register of Case C-125/95 : Commission of the
                                                                        European Communities v. Portuguese Republic .
By order of 22 September 1995 the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal                 (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                should not be taken into consideration, and of the
                        of 19 October 1995                              defendant's decision of 22 March 1993 rejecting that
     in Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst v. Commission of the
                                                                        application and, second, for compensation for the material
                                                                        and non-material damage allegedly suffered by the applicant
                    European Communities (')                            — the Court of First Instance ( Second Chamber ), composed
(Officials — Recruitment procedure — Act adversely                      of: B. Vesterdorf, President, and D. P. M. Barrington and A.
affecting an official — Article 45 of the StaffRegulations —            Saggio, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on
Notice of vacancy — Misuse of powers — Statement of                     19 October 1995 , in which it:
              reasons — Compensation for damage)
                            ( 95/C 351 /23 )                            1 . orders the Commission to pay to the applicant the sum
                                                                            of ECU 2 000 by way of damages for breach of
                 (Language of the case: German)                             duty;
In Case T-562/93 : Dieter Obst, an official of the                      2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;
Commission of the European Communities, residing at
Everberg ( Belgium ), represented initially by Heinz-Jorg
Moritz and subsequently by Lothar Mahlberg,                             3 . orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay
Rechtsanwalte, with an address for service in Luxembourg                    one quarter of the costs of the applicant, who is ordered
care of Marianne Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel , v.                   to bear three quarters of his own costs.
Commission of the European Communities ( Agents : Joseph
Griesmar and Bertrand Wagenbaur ) — application, first, for             (') OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 .
the annulment of notice No 45/93 of the Advisory
Committee on Appointments of 18 February 1993 ,
inasmuch as it indicates that the application of the applicant


title: Case C-145/17 P: Appeal lodged on 21 March 2017 by Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-217/16, Internacional de productos metálicos v Commission

text:
               19.6.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/12

         Appeal lodged on 21 March 2017 by Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Second Chamber) delivered on 25 January 2017 in Case T-217/16, Internacional de productos metálicos v Commission
   (Case C-145/17 P)
   (2017/C 195/17)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Internacional de Productos Metálicos, S.A. (represented by: C. Cañizares Pacheco, E. Tejedor de la Fuente and A. Monreal Lasheras, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Forms of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

               —

               set aside the order of the General Court of the European Union of 25 January 2017 in Case T-217/16;

               —

               refer Case T-217/16 back to the General Court of the European Union, so that it may rule on the temporal limitation laid down in Article 2 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

               1.

               By its first ground of appeal, the appellant submits that it had standing to bring an action for annulment before the General Court of the European Union (‘the General Court’) against Regulation 2016/278 (1), since that regulation satisfies the requirements set out in paragraph 4 of Article 263 TFEU. As the Court knows, those requirements are: (i) that the contested act is of direct and individual concern or (ii) that the contested act is a regulatory act which is of direct concern and does not entail implementing measures.
               In relation to the requirement that the contested act must be of direct and individual concern, the appellant submits that the General Court in no way disputed that it was directly concerned. In addition, IPM is individually concerned by the contested act since the regulation in question affects each and every importer that included TARIC nomenclature or codes in its Single Administrative Documents (SADs) in relation to the goods subject to the anti-dumping duties, between 2009 (when Regulation 91/2009 entered into force) and 2016 (when Regulation 2016/278 entered into force) inclusive. In that manner, those importers formed a ‘limited class of economic operators’, since the limitation of the effects of the derogation from the antidumping duties affected them in a concrete and specific way.
               Furthermore, as regards the requirement that the contested act must be a regulatory act which is of direct concern and does not entail implementing measures, the appellant’s arguments seek to prove that Regulation 2016/278 does not entail implementing measures. Thus the collection of duties to which the General Court refers as implementing measures of the regulation are not actually implementing measures, since the only duties collected from the appellant in that respect derived from the provisions of Regulation 91/2009 (2), and in no case from the provisions of the contested regulation (Regulation 2016/278). This is demonstrated by that fact that the duties collected from IPM by the Spanish tax authorities were imposed before the entry into force of the contested regulation.
               Thus, the contested Article 2 is an autonomous provision that does require any subsequent measure in order to produce legal effects as from the date of its entry into force, since it merely repeals certain anti-dumping duties in the light of their incompatibility with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT treaty.
               Moreover, the regulation imposes an obligation not to act, since it orders the Spanish State not to issue any measure collecting anti-dumping duties, with the result that it precludes the issue of any tax measure capable of being challenged under national law, and bringing an action for annulment is therefore the only way in which IPM may challenge Article 2 of Regulation 2016/278.
               For all the foregoing reasons, the appellant submits that there is no doubt that IPM is entitled under Article 263 TFEU to bring an action for annulment against Article 2 of Regulation 2016/278, since that regulation, by virtue of its nature and content, does not entail any implementing measures.

               2.

               By its second ground of appeal, the appellant refers to the claim it made before the General Court seeking acknowledgement that Article 1 of the contested regulation has retroactive effects. In that respect, contrary to what the General Court indicated in the order appealed against, in which it stated that it did not have jurisdiction to declare that Article 1 of the regulation has retroactive effects, the appellant submits that this is a necessary consequence of the annulment of Article 2 of the regulation, since that article establishes the temporal limitation, the validity of which formed the basis of the dismissed action for annulment. Accordingly, the claim made by the appellant seeking a declaration that Article 1 of that regulation has retroactive effects is entirely admissible, since that claim will be accepted implicitly once Article 2 of the regulation is declared invalid.

      (1)  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/278 of 26 February 2016 repealing the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China, as extended to imports of certain iron or steel fasteners consigned from Malaysia, whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not (OJ 2016, L 52 p. 24).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 of 26 January 2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2009, L 29, p. 1).


title: Case T-244/14: Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)

text:
               25.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 282/38

         Action brought on 17 April 2014 — The Smiley Company v OHIM (Shape of a face in the form of a star)
   (Case T-244/14)
   2014/C 282/50
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Smiley Company SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Freitag, lawyer)

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

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 838/2013-1;

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: Tri-dimensional mark representing the shape of a face in the form of a star for goods in classes 29 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 1 68  937

      Decision of the Examiner: Found the mark applied for not eligible for registration pursuant to Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009


title: Case C-529/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

text:
               18.1.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 15/3

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 8 October 2013 — Georg Felber v Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur
   (Case C-529/13)
   2014/C 15/03
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Georg Felber

      Defendant: Bundesministerin für Unterricht, Kunst und Kultur

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does it constitute — for the moment notwithstanding Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (‘the Charter’) and Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (‘the directive’) — (direct) unequal treatment on grounds of age for the purposes of Article 21(1) of the Charter and Article 2(1) and (2)(a) of the directive if periods of study at an intermediate or secondary school are credited as pensionable previous periods only if they were completed after the civil servant reached the age of 18, where those pensionable previous periods are important not only for the pension entitlement but also for the amount of that pension and that pension (total pension) is regarded in national law as the continued payment of remuneration in the context of a public-law employment relationship which still exists even after the civil servant has retired?

               2.

               If so, may a civil servant — in the absence of a justification in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6 of the directive (see question 3 below) — rely on the direct applicability of Article 21 of the Charter and Article 2 of the directive in proceedings concerning an application for the crediting of pensionable previous periods even if he is not yet retired at that time, especially since under national law — if the legal position has not changed upon his retirement — the legal force of the rejection of such an application could be held against him in a pension assessment procedure or in the case of a fresh application for the crediting of those periods?

               3.

               If so, is this unequal treatment for the purposes of Article 52(1) of the Charter and Article 6(1) and (2) of the directive

                           (a)

                           justified in order to accord to persons whose date of birth lies after the date on which school began in the year they started school or to persons who attend a type of school with an extended upper stage and, for that reason, have to attend school after the age of 18 in order to complete their studies the same conditions as to persons who complete intermediate or secondary school before the age of 18, even if the eligibility of periods of school attendance after the age of 18 are not restricted to the abovementioned cases;

                           (b)

                           justified in order to exclude from the entitlement periods in which, in general, no gainful activity takes place and accordingly no contributions are paid? Does such a justification exist irrespective of the fact that at first no contributions are payable also in respect of periods of attendance of intermediate or secondary schools after the age of 18 and in the event of the subsequent crediting of such periods of school attendance a special pension contribution is payable in any case?

                           (c)

                           justified because the exclusion of the crediting of pensionable previous periods completed before the age of 18 is to be regarded as equivalent to setting an ‘age for admission to an occupational social security scheme’ within the meaning of Article 6(2) of the directive?

      (1)  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation OJ L 303, p. 16.


title: Case F-101/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Mileva v Commission (Civil service — Open competition — Notice of competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — Non-inclusion on the reserve list — Composition of the selection board — Permanent and non-permanent members)

text:
               16.2.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/30

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 13 December 2012 — Mileva v Commission
   (Case F-101/11) (1)

   (Civil service - Open competition - Notice of competition EPSO/AD/188/10 - Non-inclusion on the reserve list - Composition of the selection board - Permanent and non-permanent members)
   2013/C 46/59
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Tzena Mileva (Paris, France) (represented: initially by E. Boigelot, lawyer, and subsequently by G. Generet, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and B. Eggers, Agents)

      Re:

   Civil service — Application for the annulment of the decision of the selection board in Open Competition EPSO/AD/188/10 — INTERPRETERS for BULGARIAN (BG) not to include the applicant on the reserve list for that competition and application for damages for material and non-material damage.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Ms Mileva to bear her own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 6, 7.1.2012, p. 25.


title: Case C-156/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozialgericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt Oberbayern

text:
27.7.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 180/9
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-               1.    Must point 35 Germany-Austria (e)(i) of Parts A and B of
richt Braunschweig by order of that Court of 26 February                     Annex III to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) be inter-
2002 in the administrative law proceedings brought by                        preted as requiring — in addition to entitlement to the
Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against Bezirks-                              benefit on 1 January 1994 — also the taking up of
                    regierung Braunschweig                                   residence in Austria?
                          (Case C-84/02)
                                                                       2.    If so, are that provision and point C Germany (1) of
                        (2002/C 180/15)                                      Annex VI to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 compatible
                                                                             with higher-ranking European law, in particular the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                       requirement of freedom of movement under Article 39
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht                      EC in conjunction with Article 42 EC?
Braunschweig (Brunswick Administrative Court) of 26 Febru-
ary 2002, received at the Court Registry on 12 March 2002,
for a preliminary ruling in the administrative law proceedings         (1) OJ L 149, p. 2.
brought by Schaper & Brümmer GmbH & Co KG against
Bezirksregierung Braunschweig on the following question:
Is Council Directive 92/27/EEC (1) of 31 March 1992 on the
labelling of medicinal products for human use and on package
leaflets (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 8) in conjunction with Council
Directive 65/65/EEC (2) of 26 January 1965 on the approxi-
mation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or adminis-
trative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (OJ,         Appeal brought on 15 May 2002 against the judgment
English Special Edition, 1965-1966, p. 20) and the Second              delivered on 6 March 2002 by the Third Chamber,
Council Directive 75/319/EEC (3) of 20 May 1975 on the                 Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or            the European Communities in Joined Cases T-127/99,
administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal prod-          T-129/99 and T-148/99 (not yet published) between
ucts (OJ 1975 L 147, p. 13) or, in the alternative, the principle      Territorio Histórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de
of the free movement of goods (Article 28 EC), to be                   Álava and Others and Commission of the European
interpreted in such a way that Community law precludes                                             Communities
national legislation which requires the package leaflets —
which in other respects comply with Community law ‘of old
medicinal products’, that is to say products on the market for                                   (Case C-183/02 P)
a long time but for which the post-marketing authorisation
procedure is still pending, to include the following notice:
‘Dieses Arzneimittel ist nach den gesetzlichen Übergangs-                                        (2002/C 180/17)
vorschriften im Verkehr. Die behördliche Prüfung auf pharma-
zeutische Qualität, Wirksamkeit und Unbedenklichkeit ist
noch nicht abgeschlossen.’ (‘This medicinal product is market-
ed in accordance with the statutory transitional provisions.           An appeal against the judgment delivered on 6 March 2002
Official verification of the product’s pharmaceutical quality,         by the Third Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court of
efficacy and safety has not yet been concluded.’)?                     First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases
                                                                       T-127/99, T-129/99 and T-148/99 between Territorio His-
(1) OJ L 113 of 30.04.1992, p. 8.                                      tórico de Álava — Diputación Foral de Álava and Others and
(2) OJ P 022 of 09.02.1965, p. 369.                                    Commission of the European Communities was brought
(3) OJ L 147 of 09.06.1975, p. 13.                                     before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                       15 May 2002 by Daewoo Electronics Manufacturing España
                                                                       SA (DEMESA), represented by Antonio Creus Carreras and
                                                                       Begoña Uriarte Valiente, Abogados, of calle Velázquez No 63,
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-                Madrid.
gericht by order of that Court of 30 January 2002 in the
case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsan-
                        stalt Oberbayern
                                                                       The appellant claims that the Court should:
                         (Case C-156/02)
                        (2002/C 180/16)                                1.    declare the present appeal admissible and consequently:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                 2.    set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht                     6 March 2002;
(Federal Social Court) of 30 January 2002, received at the
Court Registry on 29 April 2002, for a preliminary ruling in           3.    itself give final judgment in the matter on the basis of the
the case of Maria Purschke against Landesversicherungsanstalt                appellant’s pleadings at first instance and, in particular,
Oberbayern (Regional Insurance Office for Oberbayern) on the                 annul Article 1(d) and Article 2 of the decision of the
following questions:                                                         Commission of 24 February 1999;


title: Case T-214/05: Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               20.8.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/23

         Action brought on 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-214/05)
   (2005/C 205/44)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2005 by Hippocrate Vounakis, residing in Wezembeek-Oppem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Xavier Martin, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Etienne Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1.

               annul the decision of the Commission establishing his 2003 Career Development Report;

               2.

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By his claim, the applicant seeks annulment of his 2003 Career Development Report. In support of his action, he submits that the contested report infringes Article 43 of the Staff Regulations, their general implementing provisions and the duty to give reasons and is the result of a manifest error of assessment. In that context, the applicant points to several alleged inconsistencies between, on the one hand, the marks awarded to him and, on the other, the associated comments.


title: Case T-114/06: Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Globe v Commission

text:
               22.9.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/17

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 July 2007 — Globe v Commission
   (Case T-114/06) (1)

   (2007/C 223/31)

      Language of the case: French

   The President of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 29 June 2000 in Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politi v European Training Foundation (Appeal — Temporary staff — Time-limit for lodging complaint — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Error in classification — Admissibility)

text:
21.10.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 302/5
Käräjäoikeus, Finland, for a preliminary ruling in the proceed-            in Turin (Italy), represented by J.-N. Louis, F. Parmentier and
ings pending before that court between Tullihallitus and Kaupo             V. Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Salumets and Others — on the interpretation of the Sixth                   Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire, Boîte Postale 585
Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the har-                    — appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance of
monisation of the laws of the Member States relating to                    the European Communities (Second Chamber) of 9 February
turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform                 1999 in Case T-124/98 Politi v European Training Foundation
basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1), Council Directive               [1999] ECR-SC I-A-9 and II-29, seeking to have that order set
92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements                  aside, the other party to the proceedings being: European
for products subject to excise duty and on the holding,                    Training Foundation, represented by B. Wägenbaur, Rechtsan-
movement and monitoring of such products (OJ 1992 L 76,                    walt, Hamburg, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
p. 1), Council Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the               the office of C. Gómez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of the
harmonisation of the structures of excise duties on alcohol                Commission of the European Communities, Wagner Centre,
and alcoholic beverages (OJ 1992 L 316, p. 21) and Council                 Kirchberg — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of:
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-                      D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber, P.J.G. Kapteyn,
lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1)                   A. La Pergola, H. Ragnemalm and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur),
— the Court (First Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, President             Judges; F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;              given a judgment on 29 June 2000, in which it:
M. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 29 June                 1.    Dismisses the appeal;
2000, in which it has ruled:
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                   2.    Orders Mr Politi to pay the costs.
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
assessment, Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on             (1) OJ C 246 of 28.8.1999.
the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on
the holding, movement and monitoring of such products, Council
Directive 92/83/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the harmonisation of
the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages and
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992
establishing the Community Customs Code must be interpreted as
meaning that their provisions on liability to tax and tax debts apply
also to contraband importation into Community customs territory of
ethyl alcohol from non-member countries.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.
                                                                                of 4 July 2000
                                                                           in Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communi-
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                           (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                           of 29 June 2000                                 Judgment of the Court establishing such failure — Non-
                                                                           compliance — Article 171 of the EC Treaty (now Article
in Case C-154/99 P: Corrado Politi v European Training                     228 EC) — Financial penalties — Periodic penalty payment
                            Foundation (1)                                      — Waste Directives 75/442/EEC and 78/319/EEC)
(Appeal — Temporary staff — Time-limit for lodging
                                                                                (2000/C 302/10)
complaint — Time-limit for initiating proceedings — Error
                in classification — Admissibility)
                           (2000/C 302/09)                                                     (Language of the case: Greek)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           (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-154/99 P: Corrado Politia former member of the                   In Case C-387/97: Commission of the European Communities
temporary staff of the European Training Foundation, residing              (Agent: M. Condou-Durande), supported by United Kingdom


title: Case T-896/16: Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)

text:
               8.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 144/63

         Order of the General Court of 9 March 2017 — Puma v EUIPO — Senator (TRINOMIC)
   (Case T-896/16) (1)

   (2017/C 144/99)
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the General Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 53, 20.2.2017.


title: Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Büchel & Co. Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Council of the European Union (Case T-74/97)

text:
No C 166/18           EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                  31 . 5 . 97
Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Biichel &C Co.                   The Reference Regulation makes provision for the
Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Council of the                 Commission to grant exemptions to assemblers who do
                       European Union                               not satisfy the factual preconditions for circumvention .
                        ( Case T-74/97 )                            Pure importers of bicycle parts, on the other hand, are
                                                                    subject to the end-use procedure before the national
                          97/C 166/37
                                                                    customs authorities, introduced by the Reference
               (Language of the case: German)                       Regulation . That procedure makes the exemption under
                                                                    the Basic Regulation for undertakings which do not satisfy
                                                                    the factual preconditions for circumvention subject to
An action against the Council of the European Union was             further conditions, which were not provided for by the
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European          Basic Regulation and were therefore adopted without legal
Communities on 28 March 1997 by Biichel & Co. Fahr                 basis . Those further conditions lead, moreover, to a
zeugteilefabrik GmbH, Fulda ( Federal Republic of                   restriction on the free movement of goods in the
Germany ), represented by Wolfgang A. Rehmann, Rechts              Community and will therefore offend against the principle
anwalt, and Ute Zinsmeister, Rechtsanwaltin, Brussels,              of the free movement of goods . In addition, the end-use
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                    procedure results in breach of the right to property and,
Chambers of Bonn & Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume .                   because of the different treatment of assemblers and
                                                                    importers, offends against the principle of equal treatment.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Council Regulation ( EC ) No 71 /97,                        The applicant contends in an ancillary claim that
                                                                    Article 13 of the Basic Regulation, which constitutes the
— declare, pursuant to Article 184 of the EC Treaty, that           legal basis for the Reference Regulation, is inconsistent
     Article 13 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 is           with Article VI of the GATT and the Agreement on
     inapplicable in so far as it constitutes the legal basis       Implementation of Article VI, since it allows duty to be
     for Regulation No 71 /97,                                      imposed in the case of circumvention without injury to the
                                                                    Community industry having to be proved . It contends
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                             additionally that Article VI of the GATT is infringed on
                                                                    the basis that, according to Article 13 of the Basic
                                                                    Regulation, duty can be imposed in the case of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                 circumvention even if the goods are assembled or
                                                                    produced by a person who is not connected with an
The applicant produces mainly bicycle parts and trades               importer or producer whose exports of like products are
additionally in individual bicycle parts ( not produced in          subject to the definitive anti-dumping duty.
kits ), which are imported, inter alia, from the People's
Republic of China .
In this action, the applicant challenges Council Regulation
( EC ) No 71/97 (the 'Reference Regulation'), by which the
duty originally introduced for bicycles originating in the
People's Republic of China was extended to the import of             Action brought on 28 March 1997 by Biichel & Co. Fahr
bicycle parts originating in that country. Although the              zeugteilefabrik GmbH against the Commission of the
applicant does not satisfy the factual preconditions for                               European Communities
circumvention, it was not granted exemption from the                                         Case T-75 /97 )
duty applicable in the case of circumvention.
                                                                                97/C 166/38
The applicant contends that the Reference Regulation
should be annulled and relies thereby essentially on the                           (Language of the case: German)
 following grounds .
While the Commission investigation which led to adoption             An action against the Commission of the European
 of the Reference Regulation related solely to the import of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
 complete, pre-assembled bicycle parts ( assemblies), the            Instance of the European Communities on 28 March 1997
 duty applicable in the case of circumvention was imposed            by Biichel & Co . Fahrzeugteilefabrik GmbH, Fulda
 not only on the relevant assemblies but also on individual           (Federal Republic of Germany ), represented by Wolfgang
 bicycle parts, irrespective of whether or not they were             A. Rehmann, Rechtsanwalt, and Ute Zinsmeister,
 placed in kits . Such extension of the measures is not              Rechtsanwaltin, Brussels, with an address for service in
 covered by Article 13 of Regulation ( EC ) No 384/96 (the            Luxembourg at the Chambers of Bonn 8c Schmitt, 62
 'Basic Regulation ').                                               Avenue Guillaume .
 The extension of the anti-dumping duty to individual
 bicycle parts also offends against the principle of                  The applicant claims that the Court should :
 proportionality, since the measure chosen is not
 appropriate for achievement of the objective in view and
 is not the least onerous means .                                     — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 88/97,


title: Case T-767/14: Action brought on 17 November 2014  — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos and Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt (Oksana)

text:
               9.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/53

         Action brought on 17 November 2014 — Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn v CPVO — Artevos and Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt (Oksana)
   (Case T-767/14)
   (2015/C 046/69)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Boomkwekerij van Rijn-de Bruyn BV (Uden, Netherlands) (represented by: P. Jonker, lawyer)

      Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artevos GmbH (Karlsruhe, Germany) and Dachverband Kulturpflanzen- und Nutztiervielfalt eV (Bielefeld, Germany)

      Details of the proceedings before the CPVO

      Applicant for Community plant variety right: applicant

      Community plant variety right at issue: Oksana — application No 2005/1046

      Contested decision: decision of the Board of Appeal of the CPVO of 2 July 2014 in Case A 007/2013

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision;

               —

               consequently, uphold the applicant’s appeal against decisions R 1232, OBJ 13-086, OBJ 13-087, OBJ 13-088 and OBJ 13-090 of the CPVO, find that the applicant’s variety is (sufficiently) new within the meaning of Article 10 of Regulation No 2100/94 and grant a Community plant variety right for the applicant’s variety;

               —

               order the CPVO and the other parties to pay the costs.

      Plea in law

               —

               infringement of Articles 10 and 76 of Regulation No 2100/94.


               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/1

         2009/C 180/01
   Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

         OJ C 167, 18.7.2009

      Past publications

      OJ C 153, 4.7.2009

      OJ C 141, 20.6.2009

      OJ C 129, 6.6.2009

      OJ C 113, 16.5.2009

      OJ C 102, 1.5.2009

      OJ C 90, 18.4.2009

   These texts are available on:
   EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu