title: Case C-213/16: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Tanja Reiter

text:
               18.7.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/20

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2016 — Criminal proceedings against Tanja Reiter
   (Case C-213/16)
   (2016/C 260/25)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht München

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Tanja Reiter
   Other party: Staatsanwaltschaft München I

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Article 2 and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, even though the accused person does not, as a result, have the benefit of the whole of the period for lodging an objection to that penalty order, but he also has no address at which the penalty order can demonstrably be notified to him, and the nomination of a person authorised to accept service and in possession of an address enables him to keep the authorised person informed of where a penalty order can be sent to him with proof of notification?

               2.

               Do Article 2(1) and Article 6(1) and (3) of Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 preclude a provision of law enacted by a Member State under which, in criminal proceedings, an accused person who has no place of residence in that Member State must nominate a person authorised to accept service of a penalty order made against him, and service on a person authorised to accept service is automatically sufficient for the purpose of calculating the period within which an objection may be lodged, where, in the event of failure to comply with the period calculated in this way, the accused person can apply to have his position restored to the status quo ante and, in those circumstances, an adequate excuse for such failure is that the penalty order was forwarded to him and, after it had been forwarded, he lodged an objection within the prescribed period, that is to say where, by having his position restored to the status quo ante, he can retroactively rely on the unreduced period for lodging an objection, even though, by law, a penalty order is generally declared enforceable in the event of failure to comply with the period for lodging an objection?

      (1)  Directive 2012/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012 on the right to information in criminal proceedings (OJ 2012 L 142, p. 1).


title: Case C-425/06: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation (Sixth VAT Directive — Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(a) and (d) — Leasing — Artificial division of the supply into a number of parts — Effect — Reduction of the taxable amount — Exemptions — Abusive practice — Conditions)

text:
               12.4.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 92/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 February 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione (Italy)) — Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze v Part Service Srl, in liquidation
   (Case C-425/06) (1)

   (Sixth VAT Directive - Articles 11A(1)(a) and 13B(a) and (d) - Leasing - Artificial division of the supply into a number of parts - Effect - Reduction of the taxable amount - Exemptions - Abusive practice - Conditions)
   (2008/C 92/09)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Corte suprema di cassazione
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Ministero dell'Economia e delle Finanze

      Defendant: Part Service Srl, in liquidation
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Corte suprema di cassazione — Interpretation of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — Leasing transaction split into a number of separate contracts with the effect of obtaining a tax advantage — Interpretation of the concept of abuse of rights as defined in the judgment of the Court of Justice in Case C-255/02 Halifax and Others

   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The Sixth Council Directive 77/338/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment, must be interpreted as meaning that there can be a finding of an abusive practice when the accrual of a tax advantage constitutes the principal aim of the transaction or transactions at issue.

               2.

               It is for the national court to determine, in light of the ruling on the interpretation of Community law provided by the present judgment, whether, for the purposes of the application of VAT, transactions such as those at issue in the dispute in the main proceedings can be considered to constitute an abusive practice under the Sixth Directive.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-36/14: Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission (Action for annulment — ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ Programme — ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries — Decision to end the project — Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable — Inadmissibility)

text:
               2.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 73/35

      Order of the General Court of 6 January 2015 — St'art and Others v Commission
      (Case T-36/14) (1)

      (Action for annulment - ‘European Creative Industries Alliance’ Programme - ‘C-I Factor’ project aimed at introducing new instruments in order to promote funding for cultural and creative industries - Decision to end the project - Measure forming part of a purely contractual framework from which it is not separable - Inadmissibility)
      (2015/C 073/45)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicants: St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles (Mons, Belgium); Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen (Amsterdam, Netherlands); and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Dehin and C. Brüls, avocats)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Delaude, J. Estrada de Solà and S. Lejeune, acting as Agents)

         Re:

      Action for annulation of, first, the Commission’s ‘implicit decision of unknown date’ aimed at ending the project ‘C-I Factor SI2.609157-2/G/ENT/CIP/11/C/N03C011’ and, therefore, ending the grant awarded to the consortium of which the applicants form part and, secondly, the ‘explicit decision confirming it’ adopted on 29 November 2013.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  St’art — Fonds d’investissement dans les entreprises culturelles, Stichting Cultuur — Ondernemen and Angel Capital Innovations Ltd are ordered to bear their own costs as well as those incurred by the European Commission.

         (1)  OJ C 135, 5.5.2014.


title: Case T-70/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/52

         Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission
   (Case T-70/07)
   (2007/C 95/106)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (Termoli, Italy) (represented by: B. Daniela Mammarella, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all costs and fees incurred in the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The present application is directed against the Commission's decision of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy is planning to implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A (No C 48/2004 (ex No 595/2003)) (1), by which it classed as State aid not compatible with the common market the operating aid, provided for in Article 3 of the Shipbuilding Regulation (2), that Italy planned to give the applicant in respect of Ship C.180 (ex C.173), and forbade the 10-month extension of the ship's delivery limit, on the ground that the causes of the delays invoked by the applicant (the impact of the events of 11 September 2001 in New York, the need for technical modifications, the occurrence of natural disasters) failed to satisfy the second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Shipbuilding Regulation.
   In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

               (a)

               Procedural defect, in the form of an insufficient statement of reasons in respect of the following findings:

                           —

                           that the events of 11 September had no causal link with the present case: by contrast with the cruise ship shipbuilding sector, the shipbuilding sector in which the applicant is active — that is to say, the petro-chemical tanker shipbuilding sector — was found to have suffered no disruption on account of those events;

                           —

                           that it has not been shown that the natural disasters which struck the territory in which the applicant is active played a causal role;

                           —

                           the findings concerning the need to introduce technical modifications to the construction.

               (b)

               Manifest error in the assessment of the facts adduced by way of evidence, confirmed by the Italian State, of the disruption of the programme of works, including the unwarranted distinction drawn between chemical markets and other shipping sectors for the purposes of applying the Community legislation in question, as well as the biased interpretation of the November 2003 report from the Clarkson Research Institute — moreover, an interpretation in the abstract and out of context — to which decisive importance was attributed, without practical checks being carried out and substantiated by documentary evidence.

               (c)

               Misuse of powers, given the failure to determine, on the basis of facts and by reference to the characteristics and circumstances of the individual case, whether the requested extension of only 10 months was likely to affect trade between Member States, and thus to assess the compatibility of the operating aid with the competition rules of the Community.

      (1)  OJ L 283, 28.12.2006, p. 53.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1).


title: Case T-104/11: Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE’)

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/20

         Action brought on 17 February 2011 — Ferrari v OHIM (PERLE’)
   (Case T-104/11)
   2011/C 113/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Ferrari F.lli Lunelli SpA (Trento, Italy) (represented by P. Perani and G. Ghisletti, lawyers)

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

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1249/2010-2 delivered on 8 December 2010 and notified on 17 December 2010.

               —

               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Community trade mark concerned: International figurative mark (No W 10510030) containing the word element ‘PERLE’’ for goods in Classes 3, 25 and 33 in respect of which the applicant has sought Community protection.

      Decision of the Examiner: Rejected in part the request for protection.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and (2) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-458/02: Action brought on 18 December 2002 by the Commission of the European Communities against the United Kingdom

text:
C 55/8                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                            8.3.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesfinanz-                 Action brought on 18 December 2002 by the Commission
hof by order of that Court of 29 October 2002 in the case               of the European Communities against the United
of Hauptzollamt Bremen against ITG GmbH Inter-                                                       Kingdom
                      nationale Spedition
                                                                                (Case C-458/02)
                        (Case C-452/02)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/16)
                         (2003/C 55/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  An action against the United Kingdom was brought before the
European Communities by order of the Bundesfinanzhof                    Court of Justice of the European Communities on 18 December
(Federal Finance Court) of 29 October 2002, received at the             2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,
Court Registry on 12 December 2002, for a preliminary ruling            represented by K. Banks, acting as agent, with an address for
in the case of Hauptzollamt Bremen against ITG GmbH                     service in Luxembourg.
Internationale Spedition on the following questions:
1.    Is a customs debt on importation incurred under                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
      Article 203(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 ( 1) where,
      contrary to instructions, goods in temporary storage are
      not presented to the original customs authority but to            —     declare that in providing for an exception to the right to
      another customs authority without having been placed                    equitable remuneration for performers and phonogram
      under the Community transit procedure required for their                producers where a phonogram published for commercial
      movement?                                                               purposes, or a reproduction of such phonogram, is used
                                                                              for any communication to the public (the exception
                                                                              concerning any communication to a non-paying audi-
2.    If Question 1 should be answered in the negative: In the                ence), the United Kingdom has failed to implement
      circumstances described in Question 1 is there a non-                   correctly Article 8(2) of Council Directive 92/100/EEC (1)
      fulfilment of an obligation that could result in the                    on rental right and lending right and on certain rights
      incurrence of a customs debt on importation under                       related to copyright in the field of intellectual property;
      Article 204(1)(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92?
                                                                        —     order the United Kingdom to pay the costs of this action.
3.    If Question 2 should be answered in the affirmative:
      (a)   Should Article 859, point 5, of Regulation (EEC)
            No 2454/93 (2) be interpreted as referring only to
            an unauthorised movement of goods that could                Pleas in law and main arguments
            have been authorised by the customs office, or does
            it mean any movement of goods at all?
      (b) Should Article 859, point 5, of Regulation (EEC)              The only permissible exceptions to both the producers’ and
            No 2454/93 be interpreted as meaning that the               performers’ right to obtain equitable remuneration under
            condition laid down in that provision, that the             Article 8 of Directive 92/100/EEC are provided for by
            goods in temporary storage can be presented to the          Article 10 of the directive. In the present context, the United
            customs authorities at their request, is fulfilled only     Kingdom can only rely upon limitations allowed under
            if the goods are presented again to the customs             Article 10(2) because the exceptions provided for under
            office where they were originally presented, or is the      paragraph 1 of the said provision are not pertinent.
            condition fulfilled even if the goods are presented
            again to another customs office in the same town
            which comes under the organisation of a different
                                                                        As to the application of the limitations allowed under
            customs authority?
                                                                        Article 10(2), it must be borne in mind that, pursuant to this
                                                                        provision, Member States may only provide for limitations
                                                                        with regard to the protection of performers to the extent that
( 1) OJ L 302, p. 1.                                                    they may lawfully do in connection with the protection of
( 2) OJ L 253, p. 1.                                                    copyright in literary and artistic works. It follows, however,
                                                                        from Article 11 bis (2) of the Berne Convention that domestic
                                                                        legislation shall not in any circumstances be prejudicial to the
                                                                        author’s right to obtain equitable remuneration.
 ---pagebreak--- 8.3.2003               EN                     Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 55/9
Since, under Article 10(2) of the directive, producers and                  —     fails to lay down a maximum period of 7 years
performers must be treated on an equal footing with authors,                      for the selection of suppliers of groundlhandling
the United Kingdom is not entitled to exclude the right to                        services, in accordance with Article 11(1)(d), of the
claim equitable remuneration when a broadcast or cable                            directive in question;
programme containing a recording is seen or heard by a non-
paying audience as set out in paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 of
the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.                                —     introduces, by Article 14, a social measure which is
                                                                                not compatible with Article 18 of the directive;
In the view of the Commission, the criterion of a non-paying                —     provides, at Article 20, transitional provisions not
audience as defined in the aforementioned provision goes                          permissible under the directive;
much further than the exceptions to the right permitted under
Article 10 of the directive.
                                                                      (b)   order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
Therefore, the Commission submits that by providing for
exceptions from the right to equitable remuneration granted
to performers where a broadcast or communication to the
public of protected subject matter is seen or heard by a non-
paying audience, the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil the          Pleas in law and main arguments
requirements of Community law and in particular of
Article 8(2) of Directive 92/100/EEC.
                                                                      Article 11 of Legislative Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999
( 1) OJ L 346, 27.11.1992, p. 61.                                     does not lay down the maximum period for which suppliers
                                                                      of services are selected at airports in which access to the
                                                                      market is by means of a selection procedure. Article 11(1)(d)
                                                                      of Directive 96/67/EC expressly provides that the maximum
                                                                      period is fixed at 7 years. The Commission therefore takes
                                                                      the view that the absence of a limit to the duration of
                                                                      groundhandling contracts at Italian airports is incompatible
                                                                      with the requirements laid down by the directive.
Action brought on 19 December 2002 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Italian Republic              Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC allows Member States to take
                                                                      the necessary measures to ensure protection of the rights of
                                                                      workers. However, such measures must not affect the appli-
                         (Case C-460/02)                              cation of the directive itself and must not obstruct other
                                                                      provisions of Community law. In other words, the protection
                                                                      of the rights of workers is indeed permissible under Article 18
                          (2003/C 55/17)                              of the directive provided that it does not run counter to the
                                                                      effective application of the directive so far as concerns
                                                                      groundhandling services. Article 14(1) of Legislative Decree
                                                                      No 18/99 lays down the objective of adopting measures to
                                                                      protect the number of posts of staff working for the previous
                                                                      service supplier and continuing employment. The second
An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the         paragraph of the article in question thus contains the obligation
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 19 December           to transfer staff any time there is a ‘transfer of business’
2002 by the Commission of the European Communities,                   affecting one or more categories of groundhandling services
represented by Mikko Huttunen and Antonio Aresu, acting as            under Annex A and B. Such a provision manifestly exceeds the
Agents.                                                               protection already guaranteed by Council Directive 77/187/
                                                                      EEC of 14 February 1977 ( 2) on the approximation of the laws
                                                                      of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or
                                                                      parts of businesses, as amended by Council Directive 98/50/
                                                                      EC (3) and codified by Council Directive 2001/23/EC ( 4) of
(a)   Declare that the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil          12 March 2001. Accordingly, the Commission takes the view
      its obligations under Council Directive 96/67/EC ( 1) of        that Article 14 of Legislative Decree No 18/99 goes beyond
      15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling                 what may be considered to be permissible measures to
      market at Community airports inasmuch as Legislative            guarantee the protection of the rights of workers under
      Decree No 18 of 13 January 1999                                 Article 18 of Directive 96/67/EC.


title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by orders of that court of 25 March 1995 (C-154/95), 3 April 1995 (C-157/95), 3 May 1995 (C-174/95), 27 April 1995 (C-175/95) and 10 May 1995 (C-176/95) in the criminal proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and Armando Scrocca (Cases C-154/95, C-157/95, C-174/95, C-175/95 and C-176/95)

text:
  12 . 8 . 95             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 208/3
           EEC/USA agreement concluded under GATT, if it is              Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           found that the contested Regulation is based on               Belgium against the Commission of the European
           those provisions .                                                                         Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-155/95 )
  — As regards the improper exclusion of the overshoot of                                            ( 95/C 208/06 )
       the MGA by the Portuguese producers from the
       calculation of the overall overshoot of the Specific Basic
       Area allocated to the Community as a whole :                      An action against the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       — The exclusion of Portugal from the benefit of                   European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
           weighting of the overshoot of the Specific Base Area          Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Director of
           in the Community as a whole has no basis in Article           Administration in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign
           5 ( 1 ) ( f) of Regulation ( EEC ) No 1765/92 , as            Trade and Cooperation with Developing Countries, acting
           amended by Regulation ( EEC ) No 232/94 which                 as Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
           applied the Blair House Agreement within the                  Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des Girondins .
           Community; it infringes Article 6 of that agreement;
           it also contravenes the principle of equality as
           between the Member States regarding enjoyment of              The applicant claims that the Court should :
           the benefits deriving from Community legislation,
           according to which no exclusion of any of them is             — annul Commission Regulation ( EC ) No 479/95 of
           justified; and the exclusion is discriminatory in that it           1 March 1995 introducing transitional measures for the
           is based on the nationality of certain producers .                  application of the tariff quota arrangements for the
                                                                               import of bananas as a result of the accession of Austria,
  (•) OJ No L 36 , 16 . 2 . 1995 , p . 2 .                                     Finland and Sweden for the second quarter of 1995 and
  (2 ) OJ No L 181 , 1 . 7. 1992 , p . 12,                                     order the Commission to pay the costs ( x ).
  (•') OJ No L 30, 3 . 2 . 1994 , p . 7.
                                                                         The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                         the same as those relied on against Regulation ( EC )
                                                                         No 3303/94 in Case C-71 /95 ( 2 ).
                                                                         (») OJ No L 49 , 4 . 3 . 1995 , p . 18 .
  References for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                   ( 2 ) OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 , p. 13 .
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distaccata di Tivoli, by
  orders of that court of 25 March 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April
  1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995 ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995
  ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995 ( C-176/95 ) in the criminal
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli and
                           Armando Scrocca
  ( Cases C-154/95 , C-157/95 , C-174/95 , C-175/95 and
                                                                         Action brought on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
                                C-176/95 )
                                                                         Belgium against the Commission of the European
                             ( 95/C 208/05 )                                                          Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-156/95 )
  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                             ( 95/C 208/07 )
  European Communities by orders of the Pretura
  Circondariale di Roma, Sezione Distraccata di Tivoli ( Rome
  District Magistrates' Court, Tivoli Division ) of 25 March             An action against the Commission of the European
  1995 ( C-154/95 ), 3 April 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 3 May 1995               Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
  ( C-174/95 ), 27 April 1995 ( C-175/95 ) and 10 May 1995               European Communities on 17 May 1995 by the Kingdom of
  ( C-176/95 ), which were received at the Court Registry on             Belgium, represented by J. Devadder, Flead of Department
  15 May 1995 ( C-154/95 ), 19 May 1995 ( C-157/95 ), 6 June             at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and
  1995 ( C-174/95 and C-175/95 ) and 7 June 1995                         Cooperation with Developing Countries, with an address
  ( C-176/95 ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal                 for service in Luxembourg at the Belgian Embassy, 4 Rue des
  proceedings pending before that court against Isidoro                  Girondins .
£
  Narducci, Fulvio Smaldone, Siro Mattei, Bruno Belli     .
                                                               and
  Armando Scrocca on questions which are identical with
  those in Cases C-135/95 , C-140/95 and C-151/95 (*).                   The applicant asks the Court to annul Commission
                                                                         Regulation ( EC ) No 510/95 of 7 March 1995 on the
  (') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                         exceptional allocation of a quantity additional to the tariff
                                                                         quota for imports of bananas during the first quarter of
                                                                          1995 as a result of tropical storm Debbie (*) and order the
                                                                          Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case C-379/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia (Italy) lodged on 21 August 2008 — ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others v Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   (Case C-379/08)
   (2008/C 301/27)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Sicilia
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: ERG Raffinerie Mediterranee SpA and Others

      Defendants: Ministero dello Sviluppo Economico and Others
   Questions referred

               1.

               Does the Community directive on compensation for environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC (1) of 21 April 2004 and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude national legislation which allows the authorities to require, as ‘reasonable methods of remedying environmental damage’, works on the environmental matrices (here, consisting of the construction of a physical barrier for the groundwater along the entire seafront) different from and supplementary to those selected in advance following special preliminary discussions with the parties, already approved, implemented or in the course of being implemented?

               2.

               Does the Community directive on compensation for environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude national legislation which allows the authorities to impose such requirements ex officio, that is, without having assessed the site-specific conditions and the implementation costs in respect of the reasonably foreseeable benefits, the possible or probable collateral damage and adverse effects on public health and safety, and the necessary time scales for implementation?

               3.

               Does the Community directive on compensation for environmental damage (Directive 2004/35/EC of 21 April 2004 and, in particular, Article 7 and Annex II thereto) preclude national legislation which allows the authorities to impose such requirements ex officio as conditions for an authorisation for the lawful use of the areas not directly affected by the decontamination in so far as they have already been decontaminated or in any event were not polluted, included within the limits of the Priolo site of national interest?

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 143, p. 56.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 15 January 1998 in Case C-44/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesvergabeamt): Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG and Others v. Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH (Public procurement - Procedure for the award of public works contracts - State printing office - Subsidiary pursuing commercial activities)

text:
20.2.98              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 55/13
interpretation of Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive          freedom of movement for workers within the Community
77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) Ð the
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð               Court, composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Third
Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of                   and Fifth Chambers, acting for the President, H.
assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6. 1977, p. 1) Ð the Court                  Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
(Second Chamber), composed of: H. Ragnemalm,                         Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
President of the Sixth Chamber, acting as president of the           P. J. G. Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
Second Chamber, G. F. Mancini (Rapporteur) and G.                    (Rapporteur), J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L.
Hirsch, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate-                    Sevón, Judges; F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; L.
General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the                Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in               judgment on 15 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
which it has ruled:
                                                                     1. Article 48 of the EC Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of
Article 17 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of                   Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of
17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the                       15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð Common                         workers within the Community preclude a clause in a
system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment                    collective agreement applicable to the public service of
must be construed as allowing a taxable person acting as                  a Member State which provides for promotion on
such to deduct the VAT payable by him on goods or                         grounds of seniority for employees of that service after
services supplied to him for the purpose of investment                    eight years' employment in a salary group determined
work intended to be used in connection with taxable                       by that agreement without taking any account of
transactions. The right to deduct remains acquired where,                 previous periods of comparable employment
by reason of circumstances beyond his control, the taxable                completed in the public service of another Member
person has never made use of those goods or services for                  State.
the purpose of carrying out taxable transactions. A supply
of investment goods during the adjustment period, where
such occurs, may give rise to an adjustment of the                   2. A clause in a collective agreement entailing
deduction under the conditions set out in Article 20(3) of                discrimination contrary to Article 48 of the Treaty and
Directive 77/388/EEC.                                                     to Article 7(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 is
                                                                          null and void by virtue of Article 7(4) of that
                                                                          Regulation. Without requiring or waiting for that
(1) OJ C 101, 22.4.1995.
                                                                          clause to be abolished by collective negotiation or by
                                                                          some other procedure, the national court must
                                                                          therefore apply the same rules to the members of the
                                                                          group disadvantaged by that discrimination as those
                                                                          applicable to the other workers.
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  (1) OJ C 64, 2.3.1996.
                     of 15 January 1998
in Case C-15/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Arbeitsgericht Hamburg): Kalliope Schöning-
   Kougebetopoulou v. Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (1)
(Freedom of movement for persons Ð Collective                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
agreement applicable to public sector employees Ð
Promotion on grounds of seniority Ð Professional                                          of 15 January 1998
       experience acquired in another Member State)                  in Case C-44/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                         (98/C 55/24)                                the Bundesvergabeamt): Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria
                                                                        AG and Others v. Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH (1)
               (Language of the case: German)                        (Public procurement Ð Procedure for the award of public
                                                                     works contracts Ð State printing office Ð Subsidiary
                                                                                pursuing commercial activities)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                                (98/C 55/25)
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
In Case C-15/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht (Labour Court)
Hamburg, Germany, for a preliminary ruling in the                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
proceedings pending before that court between Kalliope                         published in the European Court Reports)
Schöning-Kougebetopoulou and Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg Ð on the interpretation of Article 48 of the EC
Treaty and Article 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)                  In Case C-44/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on                      of the EC Treaty from the Bundesvergabeamt (Federal
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/14              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                       20.2.98
Procurement Office), Austria, for a preliminary ruling in               European Investment Bank and the other existing
the proceedings pending before that court between                       financial instruments is to be interpreted as meaning
Mannesmann Anlagenbau Austria AG and Others and                         that Community funding of a works project is not
Strohal Rotationsdruck GesmbH Ð on the interpretation                   conditional upon the recipients complying with the
of Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June               review procedures within the meaning of Council
1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for the                  Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the
award of public works contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8. 1993,                   coordination       of    the   laws,    regulations    and
p. 54) and Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC)                     administrative provisions relating to the application of
No 2081/93 of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC)                    review procedures to the award of public supply and
No 2052/88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their               public works contracts if they are not themselves
effectiveness and on coordination of their activities                   contracting authorities within the meaning of
between themselves and with the operations of the                       Article 1(b) of Directive 93/37/EEC.
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial
instruments (OJ L 193, 31.7.1993, p. 5) Ð the Court,               (1) OJ C 95, 30.3.1996.
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.
Gulmann, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
P. J. G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón,
Judges; P. LeÂger, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
15 January 1998, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 15 January 1998
1. An entity such as the Österreichische Staatsdruckerei
    must be regarded as a body governed by public law              in Case C-80/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
    within the meaning of the second subparagraph of               the Hessisches Finanzgericht, Kassel): Quelle Schickedanz
    Article 1(b) of Council Directive 93/37/EEC of 14 June         AG und Co. v. Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main (1)
    1993 concerning the coordination of procedures for             (Common Customs Tariff Ð Classification of a set of
    the award of public works contracts, and thus as a             goods Ð Validity of point 6 of the Annex to Commission
    contracting authority within the meaning of the first                           Regulation (EC) No 1966/94)
    subparagraph of that provision so that works
    contracts, of whatever nature, entered into by that                                       (98/C 55/26)
    entity are to be considered to be public works
    contracts within the meaning of Article 1(a) of that                           (Language of the case: German)
    Directive.
                                                                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
2. An undertaking which carries on commercial activities
                                                                             published in the European Court Reports)
    and in which a contracting authority has a majority
    shareholding is not to be regarded as a body governed
    by public law within the meaning of Article 1(b) of            In Case C-80/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
    Directive 93/37/EEC, and thus as a contracting                 of the EC Treaty from the Hessisches Finanzgericht
    authority within the meaning of that provision, on the         (Hessen Finance Court), Kassel, Germany, for a
    sole ground that that undertaking was established by           preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
    the contracting authority or that the contracting              court between Quelle Schickedanz AG und Co. and
    authority transferred to it funds which it has earned          Oberfinanzdirektion Frankfurt am Main Ð on the
    from activities pursued in order to meet needs in the          interpretation and validity of point 6 of the Annex to
    general interest, not having an industrial or                  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94 of 28 July 1994
    commercial character.                                          concerning the classification of certain goods in the
                                                                   Combined Nomenclature (OJ L 198, 30.7.1994, p. 103)
                                                                   Ð the Court (First Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
3. A public works contract is not subject to the                   President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L.
    provisions of Directive 93/37/EEC when it relates to a         Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate-General; D.
    project which, from the outset, falls entirely within the      Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
    objects of an undertaking which is not a contracting           Registrar, has given a judgment on 15 January 1998, in
    authority and when the works contracts relating to             which it has ruled:
    that project were entered into by a contracting
    authority on behalf of that undertaking.
                                                                   1. Commission Regulation (EC) No 1966/94 of 28 July
                                                                        1994 concerning the classification of certain goods in
4. Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93                  the Combined Nomenclature is invalid insofar as in
    of 20 July 1993 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2052/                  point 6 of the Annex thereto it classifies goods put up
    88 on the tasks of the Structural Funds and their                   in sets for retail sale, comprising a brassieÁre and briefs,
    effectiveness and on coordination of their activities               separately under tariff subheadings 6108 21 00 and
    between themselves and with the operations of the                   6212 10 00.


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 22 February 2001 in Case C-187/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v Fábrica de Queĳo Eru Portuguesa Lda (Inward processing relief arrangements — Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 — Rate of yield of the processing operation — Authorisation issued by the competent customs authority — Power of that authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield)

text:
16.6.2001                 EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 173/11
services acquired by the transferor in order to effect the transfer have       1.    Article 95a of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council
a direct and immediate link with a clearly defined part of his economic              of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes
activities, so that the costs of those services form part of the overheads           to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members
of that part of the business, and all the transactions relating to that              of their families moving within the Community, as amended by
part of the business are subject to value added tax, he may deduct all               Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992,
the value added tax charged on his costs of acquiring those services.                laying down transitional provisions for application of Regu-
                                                                                lation No 1248/92, applies to recipients of pensions who,
                                                                                before the date of entry into force of the amendments introduced
(1) OJ C 1 of 4.1.1999.                                                              by the latter regulation, had already brought proceedings before
                                                                                a national court seeking to obtain the right to the pension
                                                                                by contesting the application of the national rules against
                                                                                overlapping, even if a final decision in those proceedings had
                                                                                not yet been given at the time of the entry into force of the new
                                                                                provisions.
                                                                               2.    It is for the national court to determine, first, whether its
                                                                                national law requires an application for review to be made
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             either to the competent social security institution within the
                                                                                period prescribed and in accordance with the relevant formal
                                                                                requirements, or to the court itself according to the applicable
                            (Fifth Chamber)                                          rules of procedure. Second, it is for that court to ensure that
                                                                                those requirements are not less favourable than those governing
                         of 22 February 2001                                         similar situations under domestic law and that they are not
                                                                                such as to render impossible in practice or excessively difficult
                                                                                the exercise of the rights conferred on claimants by Regulation
in Joined Cases C-52/99 and C-53/99 (reference for a                                 No 1408/71, as amended by Regulation No 1248/92.
preliminary ruling from the Cour du Travail de Liège
(Belgium)): Office National des Pensions (ONP) v Giocon-
da Camarotto (C-52/99), Giuseppina Vignone (C-53/99) (1)                       (1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.
(Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, as amended by
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 — Social security Insurance
relating to old age and death — Calculation of benefits —
    Changes to the rules governing calculation of benefits)
                            (2001/C 173/17)                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                      (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                of 22 February 2001
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published         in Case C-187/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                     in the European Court Reports)                            the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v
                                                                                Fábrica de Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda (1)
In Joined Cases C-52/99 and C-53/99: reference to the Court
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from                   (Inward processing relief arrangements — Regulation (EEC)
the Cour du Travail de Liège (Higher Labour Court, Liège) for                  No 1999/85 — Rate of yield of the processing operation —
a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    Authorisation issued by the competent customs authority —
court between Office National des Pensions (ONP) and Giocon-                   Power of that authority unilaterally to alter the rate of yield)
da Camarotto (C-52/99), Giuseppina Vignone (C-53/99) — on
the interpretation of Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)                                             (2001/C 173/18)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the
                                                                                (Language of the case: Portuguese)
Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971 (II), p. 416), as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April
1992 (OJ 1992 L 136, p. 7) — the Court (Fifth Chamber),
composed of: A. La Pergola, President of the Chamber,                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur) and P. Jann, Judges; S. Alber,                                          in the European Court Reports)
Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in                        In Case C-187/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
which it has ruled:                                                            the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the the Supremo
 ---pagebreak--- C 173/12                  EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          16.6.2001
Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court) (Por-                  Communities (Agent: H. van Vliet) — application for partial
tugal) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                    annulment of Commission Decision 98/358/EC of 6 May
before that court between Fazenda Pública and Fábrica de                    1998 on the clearance of the accounts presented by the
Queijo Eru Portuguesa Lda, intervener Ministério Público — on                Member States in respect of the expenditure for 1994 of the
the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of                  Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and
16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements                         Guarantee Fund (OJ 1998 L 163, p. 28), in so far as it disallows
(OJ 1985 L 188, p. 1) and, in particular, Article 11 thereof —                expenditure of NLG 16 378 716,63 incurred by the applicant
the Court (Second Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, Presi-                   in connection with the prefinancing of export refunds — the
dent of the Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and N. Colne-                  Court (Sixth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President
ric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,               of the Chamber, V. Skouris, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen and
has given a judgment on 22 February 2001, in which it has                     F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General;
ruled:                                                                        H.A. Rühl, Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 March 2001,
                                                                              in which it:
1.    Article 11 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1999/85 of
      16 July 1985 on inward processing relief arrangements is to             1.    Dismisses the application;
      be interpreted as applying not only to the conditions or
      requirements for the issue of an authorisation under the inward
      processing relief arrangements but also to the conditions               2.    Orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.
      imposed by the authorisation on its holder for the use or
      functioning of those arrangements and, consequently, the
      customs authority may unilaterally alter the rate of yield fixed        (1) OJ C 299 of 26.9.1998.
      by it at the time when the authorisation was issued where, while
      the arrangements are being used, the rate of yield proves to be
      higher than the rate fixed in the authorisation.
2.    Neither Regulation No 1999/85 nor the principle of legal
      certainty precludes the customs authority from altering unilat-
      erally a rate of yield fixed by it in the authorisation even if it is
      proved that the customs authority was supervising and con-
      trolling the activities of the holder of the authorisation before it
      was issued.                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.                                                                             of 6 March 2001
                                                                              in Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly v Commission of
                                                                                the European Communities (1)
                                                                              (Appeal — Officials — Disciplinary proceedings — Suspen-
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                      sion — Statement of reasons — Alleged misconduct —
                                                                              Articles 11, 12 and 17 of the Staff Regulations — Equal
                           (Sixth Chamber)                                                                 treatment)
                           of 6 March 2001
                                                                                (2001/C 173/20)
in Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands v Com-
           mission of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(EAGGF — Clearance of accounts — 1994 — Cereals, beef
                                 and veal)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                            (2001/C 173/19)                                                      in the European Court Reports)
                      (Language of the case: Dutch)                           In Case C-273/99 P: Bernard Connolly, a former official of
                                                                              the Commission of the European Communities, residing in
                                                                              London, United Kingdom, represented by J. Sambon and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published        P.-P. van Gehuchten, avocats, with an address for service in
                     in the European Court Reports)                           Luxembourg, appeal against the judgment of the Court of First
                                                                              Instance of the European Communities (First Chamber) of
In Case C-278/98: Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agents:                         19 May 1999 in Case T-203/95 Connolly v Commission
M.A. Fierstra and N. Wijmenga) v Commission of the European                   [1999] ECR-SC I-A-83 and II-443, seeking to have that


title: Case T-349/16: Order of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/50

         Order of the General Court of 3 February 2017 — Bank Saderat Iran v Council
   (Case T-349/16) (1)

   (2017/C 112/69)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 305, 22.8.2016.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2000 in Case C-117/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de Cassation): Union Nationale Interprofessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le Bars v Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets — Fruit and vegetables — Producers' organisations — Imposition of fees on non-member producers of fresh products — Exemption for non-member producers of products intended for processing — Lawfulness of the exemption)

text:
C 316/6                  EN                        Official Journal of the European Communities                                          4.11.2000
Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the                       Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council of
coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-               18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market in
employed commercial agents precludes national legislation which               fruit and vegetables, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
makes the validity of an agency contract conditional upon the                 No 3284/83 of 14 November 1983, must be interpreted as
commercial agent being entered in the appropriate register. The               meaning that, where a Member State has applied Article 15b(1) of
national court is bound, when applying provisions of domestic law             that regulation, that is to say where it has made certain rules on
predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those                production and marketing adopted by a producers’ organisation
provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose       binding on producers established in the district who do not belong to
of the Directive, so that those provisions are applied in a manner            that organisation, it is entitled to exempt certain non-member
consistent with the result pursued by the Directive.                          producers from the payment of fees, in respect of a given product, in
                                                                              so far as the goods produced by them are intended for industrial
                                                                              processing rather than for the fresh-product market.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            of 13 July 2000                                                             (Fifth Chamber)
in Case C-117/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                                of 13 July 2000
the Cour de Cassation): Union Nationale Interpro-
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le
Bars v Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole                       in Case C-136/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
          Fruits et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
                                                                              l’Économie et des Finances v Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
                                                                                Siena (1)
(Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
Fruit and vegetables — Producers’ organisations — Impo-
sition of fees on non-member producers of fresh products —                    (Turnover tax — Common system of value added tax —
Exemption for non-member producers of products intended                       Refund of the tax to taxable persons not established in the
        for processing — Lawfulness of the exemption)                         country — Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC and
                                                                                Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth Directive 79/1072/EEC)
                           (2000/C 316/10)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/11)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-117/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Cour de                           In Case C-136/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
Cassation, France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil d’État,
pending before that court between Union Nationale Interpro-                   France, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
fessionnelle des Légumes Transformés (Unilet), Gilles Le Bars                 before that court between Ministre du Budget, Ministre de
and Association Comité Économique Régional Agricole Fruits                   l’Économie et des Finances and Société Monte Dei Paschi Di
et Légumes de Bretagne (Cerafel) — on the interpretation of                   Siena — on the interpretation of Articles 2 and 5 of the Eighth
Article 15b(8) of Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 of the Council                  Council Directive 79/1072/EEC of 6 December 1979 on the
of 18 May 1972 on the common organisation of the market                       harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
in fruit and vegetables (OJ, English Special Edition 1972(II),                turnover taxes — Arrangements for the refund of value added
p. 437), as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3284/83                    tax to taxable persons not established in the territory of the
of 14 November 1983 (OJ 1983 L 325, p. 1) — the Court                         country (OJ 1979 L 331 p. 11), — the Court (Fifth Chamber)
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                 composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the Chamber,
Chamber, L. Sevón, P. Jann (Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm and                    L. Sevón, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathe-
M. Wathelet, Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl,                   let, Judges, A. Saggio, Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal
Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment              Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
on 13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:                                       13 July 2000, in which it has ruled:


title: Case T-134/12: Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission (Action for annulment and damages — Contracts concerning financial assistance from the European Union for research and development projects — Plea of inadmissibility — Failure to reclassify forms of order sought — In admissible)

text:
               8.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 71/21

      Order of the General Court of 13 January 2014 — Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT v Commission
      (Case T-134/12) (1)

      (Action for annulment and damages - Contracts concerning financial assistance from the European Union for research and development projects - Plea of inadmissibility - Failure to reclassify forms of order sought - In admissible)
      (2014/C 71/38)
      Language of the case: Spanish

         Parties

         Applicant: Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. (Alicante, Spain) (represented by: M. Jiménez Perona, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and B. Conte, Agents, and J. Rivas Andrés and X. García García, lawyers)

         Re:

      Application, first, for annulment of the decision in the Commission’s letter of 13 January 2012 concerning the reimbursement of the sums mentioned in the debit notes corresponding to the financial audit to which the applicant was subject and, second, a claim for non-contractual liability seeking an order for the Commission to pay damages and interest of EUR 732 768.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed.

                  2.

                  Investigación y Desarollo en Soluciones y Servicios IT S.A. is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission, including those relating to the proceedings for interim measures.

         (1)  OJ C 157, 2.6.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2003 in Case T-75/00: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post — Engagement in outside activities without prior authorisation)

text:
C 83/18                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                         5.4.2003
                                                          COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                         of 16 January 2003                                                          of 28 January 2003
in Case T-75/00: Augusto Fichtner v Commission of the                        in Case T-147/00: Les Laboratoires Servier v Commission
                    European Communities ( 1)                                                of the European Communities ( 1)
                                                                             (Medicinal products for human use — Community arbi-
(Officials — Disciplinary measures — Removal from post                       tration procedures — Withdrawal of marketing authoris-
— Engagement in outside activities without prior authoris-
                                                                             ations — Competence — Serotonergic anorectics: dexfenflur-
                                 ation)                                      amine, fenfluramine — Directives 65/65/EEC and 75/319/
                                                                                EEC)
                           (2003/C 83/42)
                                                                                (2003/C 83/43)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-75/00: Augusto Fichtner, a former official of
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                      In Case T-147/00, Les Laboratoires Servier, established in
Besozzo (Italy), represented initially by V. Salvatore, avvocato,            Neuilly-sur-Seine (France), represented by C. Norall, E. Wright,
and subsequently by V. La Russa, avvocato, against Com-                      M.I.F. Utgès Manley, I.S. Forrester QC and J. Killick, lawyers,
mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall and                  with an address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission
A. Dal Ferro) — application, first, for annulment of the                     of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and
Commission decision imposing on the applicant the disciplin-                 R. Wainwright): Application for annulment of the Commission
ary measure of removal from his post, with maintenance of                    decision of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
retirement pension rights, on the ground that he had engaged                 marketing authorisations of medicinal products for human use
in outside activities without prior authorisation, and, second,              which contain the [following] substances: ‘dexfenfluramine’
for payment of compensation — the Court of First Instance                    and ‘fenfluramine’ (C(2000) 573), the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber), composed of: M. Vilaras, President, P. Men-                (Second Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of:
gozzi and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; J. Palacio González, Principal                R.M. Moura Ramos, President, V. Tiili, J. Pirrung, P. Mengozzi
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    and A.W.H. Meij, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for
16 January 2003, the operative part of which is as follows:                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 28 January 2003, in
                                                                             which it:
1.     The application is dismissed;
                                                                             1.     Annuls the Commission Decision of 9 March 2000 (C(2000)
                                                                                573);
2.     The parties shall bear their own costs, including those relating
       to the proceedings for interim measures.                              2.     Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.
( 1) OJ C 135, 13.5.00.                                                      (1 ) OJ C 247, 26.8.2000.


title: Case F-13/15: Action brought on 26 January 2015  — ZZ and Others v Commission

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/50

         Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission
   (Case F-13/15)
   (2015/C 089/62)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses under Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, amending the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Union and the CEOS.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare illegal and inapplicable Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               annul the decisions cancelling all reimbursement of the applicants’ annual travel expenses as of 2014 onwards;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-577/14 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (Appeal — EU trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 51(2) — Word mark LAMBRETTA — Genuine use of the mark — Application for revocation — Partial revocation — Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO — Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court)

text:
               10.4.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/3

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 February 2017 — Brandconcern BV v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
   (Case C-577/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - EU trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 51(2) - Word mark LAMBRETTA - Genuine use of the mark - Application for revocation - Partial revocation - Communication No 2/12 of the President of EUIPO - Limitation of the temporal effects of a judgment of the Court))
   (2017/C 112/03)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Brandconcern BV (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl and H. Hartwig, Rechtsanwälte, and by G. Casucci, N. Ferretti and C. Galli, avvocati)

      Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent), Scooters India Ltd, (represented by: C. Wolfe, Solicitor, and by B. Brandreth and A. Edwards-Stuart, Barristers)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Brandconcern BV to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-455/01: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Directive 96/98/EC — Marine equipment — Free movement of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions — Obligation to be in possession of a certificate of conformity issued by a recognised national body — Non-recognition of tests carried out by bodies recognised in other Member States)

text:
C 289/4                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            29.11.2003
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                             fact that the cutting operations take place in the establishment
                                                                                where the meat is obtained.
                           (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                              (1) OJ C 3 of 5.1.2002.
                         of 16 October 2003
in Case C-423/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße):
Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstraße (1)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections
     and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)                                                  (Fourth Chamber)
                           (2003/C 289/06)                                                             of 16 October 2003
                    (Language of the case: German)                            in Case C-455/01: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
                                                                              Directive 96/98/EC — Marine equipment — Free movement
                                                                              of goods — Measures having equivalent effect to quantitative
                                                                              restrictions — Obligation to be in possession of a certificate
                                                                              of conformity issued by a recognised national body — Non-
In Case C-423/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234                    recognition of tests carried out by bodies recognised in other
EC by the Verwaltungsgericht Neustadt an der Weinstraße                                                   Member States)
(Germany) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
before that court between Emil Färber GmbH & Co. and Stadt
Neustadt/Weinstraße, on the interpretation of the second                                                 (2003/C 289/07)
paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Council Directive
85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the financing of veterinary                                        (Language of the case: Italian)
inspections and controls covered by Directives 89/662/EEC,
90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1985 L 32,
p. 14), as amended and consolidated by Council Directive 96/                  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Court (Sixth                                     in the European Court Reports)
Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the
Chamber, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann, V. Skouris
and N. Colneric, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; M.-
F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given              In Case C-455/01, Commission of the European Communities
a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:                         (Agents: R. B. Wainwright and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
                                                                              (Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by M. Fiorilli): Application for
                                                                              a declaration that, by keeping in force legislation under which
1.    The second paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to                 products in respect of which there has not yet been full
      Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the                   harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels flying
      financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by             the Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate of
      Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/                   conformity has been issued by a national body — so that in
      496/EEC, as amended and consolidated by Council Directive               some cases the right to market those products is enjoyed only
      96/43/EC of 26 June 1996, must be interpreted as meaning                by the grantee of the certificate — and by not recognising the
      that the reduction it lays down of the amounts of the fees              validity of tests carried out in accordance with international
      payable in respect of the health controls and inspections               standards by bodies recognised in the other Member States or
      connected with cutting operations applies also where the cutting        in States signatory to the Agreement of 2 May 1992 on the
      plant and the establishment where the meat is obtained, which           European Economic Area (OJ 1994 L 1, p. 3), even where the
      are situated in the same place, belong to two different natural         relevant information is made available to the competent
      or legal persons.                                                       authority and it is clear from the certificates that the equipment
                                                                              guarantees a degree of safety equivalent to that required for
2.    The extent of the reduction to be granted under the second              Italian products, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its
      paragraph of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, to Directive 85/              obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Fourth
      73, as amended and consolidated by Directive 96/43, depends             Chamber), composed of: C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur),
      on the savings made as regards the salary and social security           President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward and S. von Bahr,
      costs of the inspection staff and the administrative costs incurred     Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      in carrying out the controls and inspections as a result of the         given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003               EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                               C 289/5
1.    Declares that, by keeping in force legislation under which              of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
      products in respect of which there has not yet been full                Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has
      harmonisation, intended for use on merchant vessels flying the          given a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it:
      Italian flag, may be marketed only if a certificate of conformity
      has been issued by a national body — so that in some cases the
                                                                              1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      right to market the products is enjoyed only by the grantee of
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards the
      the certificate — and by not recognising the validity of tests
                                                                                territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC of the European
      carried out in accordance with international standards by bodies
                                                                                Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-
      recognised in the other Member States, even where the relevant
                                                                                compensation schemes the United Kingdom of Great Britain
      information is made available to the competent authority and
                                                                                and Northern Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      it is clear from the certificates that the equipment guarantees a
                                                                                Article 15 of that directive;
      degree of safety equivalent to that required for Italian products,
      the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 28 EC;                                                          2.    Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
                                                                                Ireland to pay the costs.
2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                              (1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
(1) OJ C 84 of 6.4.2002.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
                         (Second Chamber)
                                                                              in Case C-2/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                              the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz): Emil Färber GmbH & Co.
                        of 16 October 2003                                                       v Landkreis Alzey-Worms (1)
in Case C-489/01: Commission of the European Communi-                         (Common agricultural policy — Fees for health inspections
ties v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern                                and controls of fresh meat — Directive 85/73/EEC)
                               Ireland (1)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/09)
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
  to implement Directive 97/9/EC — Territory of Gibraltar)                                        (Language of the case: German)
                                                                              (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                           (2003/C 289/08)
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                              In Case C-2/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC
                                                                              by the Verwaltungsgericht Mainz (Germany) for a preliminary
                                                                              ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
In Case C-489/01, Commission of the European Communities                      Emil Färber GmbH & Co. and Landkreis Alzey-Worms, on the
(Agent: C. Tufvesson) v United Kingdom of Great Britain and                   interpretation of Annex A, Chapter I, point 2, indent (a), to
Northern Ireland (Agents: G. Amodeo): Application for a                       Council Directive 85/73/EEC of 29 January 1985 on the
declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and               financing of veterinary inspections and controls covered by
administrative provisions necessary to comply, as regards the                 Directives 89/662/EEC, 90/425/EEC, 90/675/EEC and 91/
territory of Gibraltar, with Directive 97/9/EC of the European                496/EEC (OJ 1985 L 32, p. 14), as amended and consolidated
Parliament and of the Council of 3 March 1997 on investor-                    by Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 (OJ 1996
compensation schemes (OJ 1997 L 84, p. 22) or, in any case,                   L 162, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed of:
by not notifying the measures to the Commission, the United                   R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, V. Skou-
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has failed to                   ris and N. Colneric, Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; M.-
fulfil its obligations under Article 15 of that directive, the                F. Contet, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given
Court (Second Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen, President                  a judgment on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:


title: Case C-186/12: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Impacto Azul, Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA and Others

text:
               21.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Judicial de Braga (Portugal) lodged on 23 April 2012 — Impacto Azul, Lda v BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA and Others
   (Case C-186/12)
   2012/C 217/11
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Judicial de Braga

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Impacto Azul, Lda

      Defendants: BPSA 9 — Promoção e Desenvolvimento de Investimentos Imobiliários, SA, Bouygues Imobiliária, SGPS, Lda, Bouygues Immobilier S.A., Aniceto Fernandes Viegas, Óscar Cabanez Rodriguez

      Question referred

   Is it contrary to Community law, in particular Article 49 TFEU, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European [Union], for the application of the rules in Article 501 of the [Portuguese Code of Commercial Companies] to undertakings having their seat in another Member State to be excluded pursuant to the rules contained in Article 481(2) of [that code]?