title: Case C-316/15: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council

text:
               21.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/22

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (United Kingdom) made on 26 June 2015 — The Queen on the application of Hemming (trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’) and others v Westminster City Council
   (Case C-316/15)
   (2015/C 311/27)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Hemming, trading as ‘Simply Pleasure Ltd.’, James Alan Poulton, Harmony Ltd, Gatisle Ltd, trading as ‘Janus’, Winart Publications Ltd, Darker Enterprises Ltd, Swish Publications Ltd.

      Defendant: Westminster City Council

      Questions referred

   Where an applicant for the grant or renewal of a sex establishment licence has to pay a fee made up of two parts, one related to the administration of the application and non-returnable, the other for the management of the licensing regime and refundable if the application is refused:

               (1)

               does the requirement to pay a fee including the second refundable part mean, as a matter of European law and without more, that the respondents incurred a charge from their applications which was contrary to article 13(2) of Directive 2006/123/EC on Services in the Internal Market (1) in so far as it exceeded any cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application?

               (2)

               does a conclusion that such a requirement should be regarded as involving a charge — or, if it is so to be regarded, a charge exceeding the cost to Westminster City Council of processing the application — depend on the effect of further (and if so what) circumstances, for example:

                           (a)

                           evidence establishing that the payment of the second refundable part involved or would be likely to involve an applicant in some cost or loss,

                           (b)

                           the size of the second refundable part and the length of time for which it is held before being refunded, or

                           (c)

                           any saving in the costs to Westminster City Council of processing applications(and so in their non-refundable cost) that results from requiring an up-front fee consisting of both parts to be paid by all applicants?

      (1)  OJ L 376, p. 36


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2004 in Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to implement Directive 98/24/EC within the prescribed period — Protection of the health and safety of workers — Risks linked to chemical agents at work)

text:
               28.8.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 217/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 24 June 2004
   in Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to implement Directive 98/24/EC within the prescribed period - Protection of the health and safety of workers - Risks linked to chemical agents at work)
   (2004/C 217/04)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-269/02: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: D. Martin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Lemaire, assisted by C. Bergeot-Nunes) — application for a declaration that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC) or, in any event, by not giving notice of those measures to the Commission, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive — the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting as President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and K. Schiemann (Rapporteur), Judges; A. Tizzano, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 24 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by not bringing into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on the protection of the health and safety of workers from the risks related to chemical agents at work (fourteenth individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.


title: Case F-119/06: Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Kerstens v Commission

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/68

         Action brought on 9 October 2006 — Kerstens v Commission
   (Case F-119/06)
   (2006/C 294/134)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Petrus J. F. Kerstens (Overijse, Belgium) (represented by: C. Mourato, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of 8 December 2005 of the Board of the Office for Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) amending the PMO's organisation chart;

               —

               annul the express decision of the Appointing Authority of 6 July 2006 rejecting the applicant's complaint No R/167/06;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum assessed on equitable principles at EUR 5 000as damages;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, formerly head of the ‘Resources’ Unit of the PMO, challenges the contested decision of 8 December 2005, which has the effect of reassigning him to a research position. He claims infringement of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations in that the reassignment decision in question is contrary to the interests of the service and does not respect the principle of assignment to an equivalent post. The applicant invokes in the second place infringement of the statutory provisions concerning disciplinary sanctions. Third, he alleges misuse of powers.


title: Case C-116/06: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki (Equal treatment for men and women — Protection of pregnant employees — Article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC — Right to maternity leave — Articles 8 and 11 of Directive 92/85/EEC — Effect on the right to obtain an alteration of the duration of child-care leave )

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/12

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 20 September 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tampereen käräjäoikeus — Finland) — Sari Kiiski v Tampereen kaupunki
   (Case C-116/06) (1)

   (Equal treatment for men and women - Protection of pregnant employees - Article 2 of Directive 76/207/EEC - Right to maternity leave - Articles 8 and 11 of Directive 92/85/EEC - Effect on the right to obtain an alteration of the duration of ‘child-care leave’)
   (2007/C 269/24)
   Language of the case: Finnish
   Referring court
   Tampereen käräjäoikeus
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Sari Kiiski

      Defendant: Tampereen kaupunki
   Re:
   Interpretation of Article 2 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 1976 L 39, p. 40), as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 (OJ 2002 L 269, p. 15), and of Articles 8 and 11 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (OJ 1992 L 348, p. 1) — Refusal of an employer to shorten the duration of child-care leave — Application made before the start of the leave on the ground of a new pregnancy of the person concerned — National legislation requiring unforeseeable and justified grounds as a condition for altering the duration of child-care leave, the practice adopted under the collective agreement excluding pregnancy from such grounds.
   Operative part of the judgment
   Article 2 of Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, as amended by Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, which prohibits all direct and indirect discrimination on grounds of sex as regards working conditions, and Articles 8 and 11 of Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding (10th individual Directive within the meaning of Article 16(1) of Directive 89/391/EEC), which govern maternity leave, preclude provisions of national law concerning child-care leave which, in so far as they fail to take into account changes affecting the worker concerned as a result of pregnancy during the period of at least 14 weeks preceding and after childbirth, do not allow the person concerned to obtain at her request an alteration of the period of her child-care leave at the time when she claims her rights to maternity leave and thus deprive her of the rights attaching to that maternity leave.

      (1)  OJ C 116, 20.5.2006.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 September 2000 in Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV v Commission of the European Communities (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to Commission documents — Inspection report — Exceptions relating to protection of the public interest (inspections and investigations) and of commercial secrecy)

text:
C 316/22               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                        4.11.2000
Institute of the Environment at the Joint Research Centre                  owing to the absence of a staff report for the period 1993-
in Ispra (Italy), residing in Bodio-Lomnago, Varese (Italy),               1995 during the 1996 promotion procedure — the Court of
represented by G. Marchesini, a lawyer practising before the               First Instance, composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, and
Court of Cassation of the Italian Republic, with an address for            M. Vilaras and N. Forwood, Judges: H. Jung, Registrar, has
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of E. Arendt, 8-10                   delivered a judgment on 19 September 2000 in which it:
Rue Mathias Hardt, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: G. Valsesia and A. dal Ferro) — appli-
                                                                           1.    Dismisses as inadmissible the claim for damages for pecuniary
cation for annulment of the Commission decision rejecting the
                                                                                harm in Case T-200/98;
applicant’s candidature for a Grade A post with the Institute of
the Environment at the Joint Research Centre, Ispra, the
annulment of the procedure calling for a show of interest used             2.    Orders the Council, in Case T-200/98, to pay the applicant
by the Commission to fill a temporary post at that Institute                     the sum of BEF 70 000 by way of compensation for the non-
and, in the alternative, annulment of the appointment of the                     pecuniary harm sustained by her;
candidate accepted chosen that procedure — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President,
and R.M. Moura Ramos and P. Mengozzi, Judges; G. Herzig,                   3.    Dismisses the application for annulment in Case T-101/98;
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
20 September 2000 in which it:                                             4.    Orders the Council to bear its own costs and to pay one half of
                                                                                those incurred by the applicant in Case T-200/98. The parties
1.    Dismisses the appeal;                                                      are to bear their own costs in Case T-101/98.
2.    Orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 278, 5.9.98 and C 86, 27.3.99.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.
                                                                               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                                      of 13 September 2000
                     of 19 September 2000                                  in Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities (1)
in Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98 Gisela Stodtmei-
          ster v Council of the European Union (1)                         (Decision 94/90/ECSC, EC, Euratom — Public access to
                                                                           Commission documents — Inspection report — Exceptions
                                                                           relating to protection of the public interest (inspections and
(Officials — Refusal of promotion — Action for annulment                              investigations) and of commercial secrecy)
   — Absence of staff report — Action for compensation)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/42)
                          (2000/C 316/41)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                   (Language of the case: French)
                                                                           In Case T-20/99: Denkavit Nederland BV, established at
In Joined Cases T-101/98 and T-200/98: Gisela Stodtmeister,                Voorthuizen, Netherlands, represented by E.A. Buys, of the
an official of the Council of the European Union, residing in              Arnhem Bar, v Commission of the European Communities
Tervuren (Belgium), represented by G. Vandersanden and                     (Agents: P. van Nuffel, U. Wölker and W. Wils) — application
L. Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in               for annulment of the Commission decision of 17 November
Luxembourg at Société de Gestion Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue                  1998 refusing to grant the applicant access to a report
Beck, against Council of the European Union (Agents: M. Bauer              concerning measures taken to combat swine fever in the
and M.-G. Lalande) — application for annulment of the                      Netherlands — the Court of First Instance (First Chamber),
decision of the Council not to promote the applicant to                    composed of B. Vesterdorf, President, M. Vilaras and
Grade A 3 during the 1997 promotion procedure and, second,                 N. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, gave a judgment on
damages for the harm allegedly sustained by the applicant                  13 September 2000, in which it:
 ---pagebreak--- 4.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 316/23
1.    Dismisses the application;                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
2.    Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, and pay the costs                                of 7 August 2000
      incurred by the defendant.
                                                                          in Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen against the Court
                                                                                of Auditors (1)
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                 (Officials — Request for retirement on grounds of invalidity
                                                                          — Absence of positive medical developments — Action
                                                                          manifestly unfounded in law — Action manifestly inadmis-
                                                                                sible)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/44)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          In Case T-159/99: Bjarne Christiansen, temporary official of
                                                                          the Court of Auditors of the European Communities, residing
                      of 20 September 2000                                at Nittel (Germany), represented by Alain Lorang, of the
                                                                          Luxembourg Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg
                                                                          at his Chambers, 51 Rue Albert 1er against Court of Auditors
in Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer v the European Parlia-                   of the European Communities (Agents: J.-M. Stenier, J. Inghel-
                               ment (1)                                   ram and P. Giusta) — application for annulment of the
                                                                          decision of the Court of Auditors refusing to retire him on
(Officials — Appointment on promotion — Grade LA 3 —                      ground of total permanent invalidity — the Court of First
           Consideration of the comparative merits)                       Instance (Third Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President,
                                                                          J. Azizi and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order
                                                                          on 7 August 2000 the operative part of which is as follows:
                          (2000/C 316/43)
                                                                          1.    The action is dismissed in part as manifestly inadmissible and
                                                                                as manifestly unfounded in law.
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          2.    Each party is to bear its own costs.
In Case T-220/99: Joachim Behmer, official of the European
                                                                          (1) OJ 1999 C 281.
Parliament, represented by Jean-Noël Louis, Greta-Françoise
Parmentier and Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of Gestion
Fiduciaire SARL, 2-4 Rue Beck, against European Parliament
(Agents: H. von Hertzen and J. Sant’Anna) — application for
the annulment of the decision of 7 January 1999, first, in so
far as it appoints Ms. Dhyvert to the post of Depute Head of
Division of the German Translation Division at the European                     ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Parliament and, secondly, in so far as it rejects the applicant’s
candidature for the post — the Court of First Instance (Fourth                                       of 11 July 2000
Chamber), composed of V. Tiili, President, R.M. Moura Ramos
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Palacio González, Administrator,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 20 September 2000, in               in Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture
which it:                                                                 Biologique des Régions de France (FNAB) and Others v
                                                                                Council of the European Union (1)
1.    dismisses the application;                                          (Action for annulment — Council Regulation (EC)
                                                                          No 1804/1999 — Temporary derogation in favour of exist-
2.    orders each party to bear its own costs.                                          ing trade marks — Inadmissibility)
                                                                                (2000/C 316/45)
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                          In Case T-268/99: Fédération Nationale d’Agriculture Biolo-
                                                                          gique des Régions de France (FNAB), established in Paris,


title: Case C-241/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social, Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, by order of 14 June 1999 in the case of Confederación Intersindical Galega (C.I.G.) and Servicio Galego de Saude (SERGAS)

text:
C 246/18              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    28.8.1999
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Sala de lo Social,           1. Is Article 13(1) in conjunction with Article 14a(2) of
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia, by order of 14                  Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social
June 1999 in the case of Confederación Intersindical                     security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
  Galega (C.I.G.) and Servicio Galego de Saude (SERGAS)                   persons 1and to members of their families moving within
                                                                          the Community (1), in the version of Council Regulation
                                                                          (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (2), as last amended
                        (Case C-241/99)                                   by Council Regulation (EC) No 307/99 of 8 February
                                                                          1999 (3), invalid because to provide freedom of establish-
                        (1999/C 246/37)                                   ment in accordance with Article 52 of the EC Treaty it is
                                                                          not necessary within the meaning of Articles 51 and 235
                                                                          of the EC Treaty, each in conjunction with the second and
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    third paragraphs of Article 3b of the EC Treaty, to provide
European Communities by order of the Sala de lo Social,                   that a person who has sickness, accident and pension
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Galicia (Chamber for Social              insurance with the Sozialversicherung der gewerblichen
Affairs of the High Court of Justice of Galicia) of 14 June               Wirtschaft in Austria, as the self-employed operator of a
1999, which was received at the Court Registry on 25 June                 hotel, and in addition is covered in principle, as the
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Confederación              self-employed operator of an agricultural undertaking in
Intersindical Galega (C.I.G.) and Servicio Galego de Saude                Germany, by the German old-age insurance scheme for
(SERGAS), on the following questions:                                     farmers, because of being resident in Austria is subject
                                                                          exclusively to Austrian legislation not only with respect to
1. In the light of Article 1(3) of Council Directive                      the risk of ’sickness’ but also with respect to the risks
    93/104/EC (1), must it be concluded that the work of the              of ’old age’ and ’invalidity’ or ’accidents at work and
    professional persons to which this dispute relates falls              occupational diseases’?
    within the scope of that directive?
2. In the light of Article 118 of the Treaty and the reference
                                                                       2. If the answer to Question 1 is No:
    to Directive 89/391/EC (2) in the preamble to, and Article
    1(4) of, Directive 93/104/EC, is it appropriate to conclude
    that the work of the professional persons at issue in
    this dispute falls within the scope of the exceptions or              Is Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation No 1408/71 to be
    exclusions referred to in Article 2 of the last-mentioned             interpreted as meaning that a person who pursues several
    directive and in Article 17 of Directive 93/104/EC?                   self-employed activities in the territory of several Member
                                                                          States is subject to the legislations of those States (in this
3. In view of the fact that Article 4.2 of Decree No 172/95 of            case, Austria and Germany), even if he rives in the territory
    the Xunta de Galicia of 18 May 1995 provides that                     of one Member State only (in this case, Austria)?
    ‘Assistance shall be provided on the basis of personal
    attendance’, must the whole period of a shift be regarded
    as ordinary working time? May that period be regarded as           3. Or is Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 applicable
    constituting overtime?                                                only to persons who normally pursue a specific self-
                                                                          employed activity, but not two different self-employed
                                                                          activities, in the territory of two or more Member States?
(1) OJ L 307 of 13.12.1993, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 183 of 29.6.1989, p. 1.
                                                                          Or is Article 14a(2) of Regulation No 1408/71 applicable
                                                                          also to persons who normally pursue two or more
                                                                          self-employed activities not connected with each other in
                                                                          the territory of two or more Member States?
                                                                       4. What is the relationship between Article 14a(3) of Regu-
                                                                          lation No 1408/71 and Article 14a(2) of Regulation No
                                                                          1408/71? Is Article 14a(3) to be interpreted as meaning
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht                 that the social insurance obligation of the operator of
Augsburg by order of that court of 26 April 1999 in the                   an agricultural undertaking is always governed by the
case of Johann Vogler v Landwirtschaftliche Alterskasse                   legislation of the State of the registered office or place of
                           Schwaben                                       business, even if one or more other self-employed activities
                                                                          are pursued in another Member State?
                        (Case C-242/99)
                        (1999/C 246/38)                                5. Or does Article 14c of Regulation No 1408/71 in conjunc-
                                                                          tion with Annex VII for the implementation of Article
                                                                          14c(b), point 3, contain a legislative lacuna for the
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    agricultural accident insurance scheme and the old-age
European Communities by an order of the Sozialgericht (Social             insurance scheme for farmers, if the latter pursue self-
Court) Augsburg Germany, of 26 Apri1 1999, which was                      employed agricultural activity in Germany and are not
received at the Court Registry on 25 June 1999, for a                     gainfully employed in another Member State but pursue a
preliminary ruling in the case of Johann Vogler v Landwirt-               self-employed activity there (in this case, a hotelier in
schaftliche Alterskasse Schwaben on the following questions:              Austria)?


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 27 February 1997 in Case C-59/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht Nürnberg): Francisco Bastos Moriana and Others v. Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Social security for migrant workers - Benefits for dependent children of pensioners and for orphans)

text:
26 . 4 . 97           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 131 / 1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  families moving within the Community, as amended and
                     of 27 February 1997                              updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83, must
                                                                      be interpreted as meaning that the competent institution
in Case C-59/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from             of a Member State is not bound to grant supplementary
the Sozialgericht Nürnberg): Francisco Bastos Moriana                 family benefits to pensioners or orphans residing in
           and Others v. Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit H                   another Member State where the amount of the family
(Social security for migrant workers — Benefits for                   benefits paid by the Member State of residence is lower
     dependent children of pensioners and for orphans)                than that of the benefits provided for by the laws of the
                                                                      first Member State if entitlement to the pension, or to the
                         ( 97/C 131 /01 )                             orphan 's pension, has not been acquired solely by virtue
                                                                      of insurance periods completed in that State.
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      (') OJ No C 137, 3 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p . 6 .
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-59/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Sozialgericht
Nürnberg ( Social Court, Nuremberg) ( Germany), for a                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                      of 11 March 1997
court between Francisco Bastos Moriana,               Cristobal
Aguilera Reyes, Cristobal Gordo Valle, Fernando Romero                in Case C-13/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Ramos, Rosa Moscato and Ana Munoz Abato and                           the Arbeitsgericht, Bonn): Ayşe Süzen v. Zehnacker
Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on the interpretation of                   Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhausservice, Lefarth
Articles 77 (2 ) ( b), 78 ( 2 ) ( b) and 79 ( 1 ) of Council                               GmbH, party joined H
Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed                    (Safeguarding of employees ' rights in the event of transfers
                                                                                of undertakings)
persons, to self employed persons and to members of their
families moving within the Community, as amended and                                              ( 97/C 131/02 )
updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001/83 (2 ) —
the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
President, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                             (Language of the case: German)
Sevón ( Presidents of Chambers), P. J. G. Kapteyn, C.
Gulmann ( Rapporteur), D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly,                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                           published in the European Court Reports)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 27 February
1997, in which it has ruled:
                                                                      In Case C- 13/95 : reference to the Court pursuant to
                                                                      Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Arbeitsgericht
Articles 77 (2) (b) (i) and 78 (2) (b) (i) of Council                 ( Labour Court), Bonn, for a preliminary ruling in the
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the                    proceedings pending before that court between Ayşe Süzen
application of social security schemes to employed                    and Zehnacker Gebäudereinigung GmbH Krankenhaus
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their             service, Lefarth GmbH, party joined — on the


title: Case C-61/01 P: Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parliament

text:
7.4.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 108/9
Action brought on 12 February 2001 by the Commission                      Appeal brought on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli
of the European Communities against the French Republic                   against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2000 by
                                                                          the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
                           (Case C-60/01)                                 T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parlia-
                                                                                ment
                          (2001/C 108/12)
                                                                                (Case C-61/01 P)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
                                                                                (2001/C 108/13)
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 12 February
2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,
represented by H. Støvlbæk and J. Adda, acting as Agents, with            An appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December
an address for service in Luxembourg.                                     2000 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                          the European Communities in Joined Cases T-130/98 and
                                                                          T-131/98 between Francis Panichelli and European Parliament
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                    was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
the Court should:                                                         Communities on 12 February 2001 by Francis Panichelli,
                                                                          represented by Eric Boigelot, with an address for service in
                                                                          Luxembourg.
—     declare that, by failing to adopt all the measures necessary
      and appropriate in order to ensure either that all inciner-
      ation plants currently operating in France are being                The appellant claims that the Court should:
      operated in accordance with the combustion conditions
      laid down by Directives 89/369/EEC (1) and
      89/429/EEC (2) or that they cease to operate by the due             1.   declare the appeal admissible and founded;
      date, namely 1 December 1990 as regards new plants
      and 1 December 1996 as regards existing plants, the                 2.   accordingly:
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      Article 4(1) of Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a)
      and 4 of Directive 89/429/EEC and under the third                        (a)  set aside the contested judgment;
      paragraph of Article 249 of the Treaty establishing the
      European Community;                                                      (b) itself adjudicate on the dispute and uphold the
                                                                                appellant’s claims at first instance:
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                                —     annul the implied decision of the appointing
                                                                                authority rejecting the request made by the
                                                                                applicant on 11 July 1997, by which he was
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                           neither made up to Grade A 4 with effect from
                                                                                1 January 1993, nor granted the promotion
                                                                                which he sought, nor were there drawn up staff
The Commission states that it is undeniably apparent from the                             reports in respect of the periods 1993 to 1994
information made publicly available by the French authorities                             and 1995 to 1996;
themselves, and from the response of those authorities to the
letter giving formal notice and the reasoned opinion, that                          —     annul the implied rejection of the complaint
numerous incinerators have been operating — and at least                                  lodged on 26 January 1998 against the implied
seven of them are continuing to operate — without complying                               decision to reject his request of 11 July 1997;
with the combustion conditions laid down in Article 4(1) of
Directive 89/369/EEC and Articles 2(a) and 4 of Directive
89/429/EEC.                                                                         —     order the defendant to pay to the appellant,
                                                                                subject to increase in the course of the proceed-
                                                                                ings, BEF 250 000 (EUR 6 191,91) by way of
                                                                                damages to make good the material and non-
                                                                                material damage caused to him;
(1) Council Directive 89/369/EEC of 8 June 1989 on the prevention
    of air pollution from new municipal waste incineration plants (OJ
    L 163, 14.6.1989, p. 32).                                                       —     annul the decision of the Bureau of the Euro-
(2) Council Directive 89/429/EEC of 21 June 1989 on the reduction                         pean Socialists Party group (ESP) to terminate
    of air pollution from existing municipal waste-incineration plants                    the appellant’s temporary contract with effect
    (OJ L 203, 15.7.1989, p. 50).
                                                                                from the evening of 2 October 1998, brought
                                                                                to the appellant’s notice on 2 July 1998 by a
                                                                                letter from the Chair of the ESP Group, Ms
                                                                                P. Green, dated 30 June 1998 and sent by
                                                                                registered post on 1 July 1998;
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/10                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       7.4.2001
            —     annul the express rejection of the complaint           Pleas in law and main arguments
                  lodged by the appellant on 18 May 1998,
                  notified to him by registered letter of
                                                                         The Member States are required by the binding character of
                  10 December 1998;
                                                                         the third paragraph of Article 249 and Article 10 EC (ex third
                                                                         paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty) to
      (c)   order, in any event, the defendant to pay all the            adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into national
            costs both at first instance and in the present appeal.      law before the expiry of the time-limit laid down for that
                                                                         purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
                                                                         the Commission. That time-limit expired on 30 October
                                                                         1999 without the Hellenic Republic having notified to the
                                                                         Commission the provisions transposing the directive in ques-
Pleas and main arguments                                                 tion into national law.
                                                                         (1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
Infringement of Community law, in particular Article 33 of
the Statute of the Court of Justice, given that the obligation to
provide reasons implies, in particular, that the grounds relied
on are admissible in law, that is to say adequate, relevant, free
of errors of law and fact and consistent.
                                                                         Appeal brought on 14 February 2001 by Committee of
                                                                         the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European
                                                                         Union (Eurocoton) and others against the judgment
                                                                         delivered on 29 November 2000 by the Second Chamber,
                                                                         Extended Composition, of the Court of First Instance of
                                                                         the European Communities in case T-213/97 (1) between
                                                                         Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of
                                                                         the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and Council
                                                                           of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom
Action brought on 13 February 2001 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-
                                  lic                                                            (Case C-76/01 P)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/15)
                           (Case C-64/01)
                                                                         An appeal against the judgment delivered on 29 November
                          (2001/C 108/14)                                2009 by the Second Chamber, Extended Composition, of the
                                                                         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case
                                                                         T-213/97 between Committee of the Cotton and Allied Textile
                                                                         Industries of the European Union (Eurocoton) and others and
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before               Council of the European Union, supported by United Kingdom,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 13 Febru-            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
ary 2001 by the Commission of the European Communities,                  Communities on 14 February 2001 by Committee of the
represented by Richard Wainwright, Principal Legal Adviser,              Cotton and Allied Textile Industries of the European Union
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national civil servant on              (Eurocoton), established in Brussels, Belgium, Ettlin Gesell-
secondment to its Legal Service.                                         schaft für Spinnerei und Weberei AG, established in Ettlingen,
                                                                         Germany, Textil Hof Weberei GmbH & Co. KG, established in
                                                                         Hof, Germany, H. Hecking Söhne GmbH & Co., established in
The Commission claims that the Court should:                             Stadtlohn, Germany, Spinnweberei Uhingen GmbH, estab-
                                                                         lished in Uhingen, Germany, F.A. Kümpers GmbH & Co.,
                                                                         established in Rheine, Germany, Tenthorey SA, established in
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt and to notify to the             Eloyes, France, Les Tissages des Héritiers de G. Perrin —
      Commission, within the time-limit laid down, the laws,             Groupe Alain Thirion (HPG-GAT Tissages), established in
      regulations and administrative provisions necessary to             Comimont, France, Établissements des Fils de Victor Perrin
      comply fully with Council Directive 96/61/EC of 24 Sep-            SARL, established in Thiéfosse, France, Filatures et Tissages de
      tember 1996 (1) concerning integrated pollution preven-            Saulxures-sur-Moselotte, established in Saulxures-sur-Moselot-
      tion and control, the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil       te, France, Tissage Mouline Thillot, established in Thillot,
      its obligations under the EC Treaty;                               France, Filature Niggeler & Küpfer SpA, established in Capriolo,
                                                                         Italy, Standardtela SpA, established in Milan, Italy, represented
                                                                         by Clive Stanbrook QC and Philip Bentley QC, with an address
2.    order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                      for service in Luxembourg.


title: Case C-117/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2001/29/EC — Copyright and related rights — Exceptions and limitations — Article 5(3)(n) — Use for the purpose of research or private study of works and other subject-matter — Book made available to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals in publicly accessible libraries — Meaning of work not subject to ‘purchase or licensing terms’  — Right of the library to digitise a work contained in its collection in order to make it available to users by dedicated terminals — Making the work available by dedicated terminals which permit it to be printed out on paper or to be stored on a USB stick)

text:
               17.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 409/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 September 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG
   (Case C-117/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2001/29/EC - Copyright and related rights - Exceptions and limitations - Article 5(3)(n) - Use for the purpose of research or private study of works and other subject-matter - Book made available to individual members of the public by dedicated terminals in publicly accessible libraries - Meaning of work not subject to ‘purchase or licensing terms’ - Right of the library to digitise a work contained in its collection in order to make it available to users by dedicated terminals - Making the work available by dedicated terminals which permit it to be printed out on paper or to be stored on a USB stick))
   2014/C 409/15
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Technische Universität Darmstadt

      Defendant: Eugen Ulmer KG

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               The concept of ‘purchase or licensing terms’ provided for in Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be understood as requiring that the rightholder and an establishment, such as a publicly accessible library, referred to in that provision must have concluded a licensing agreement in respect of the work in question that sets out the conditions in which that establishment may use that work.

               2.

               Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29, read in conjunction with Article 5(2)(c) of that directive, must be interpreted to mean that it does not preclude Member States from granting to publicly accessible libraries covered by those provisions the right to digitise the works contained in their collections, if such act of reproduction is necessary for the purpose of making those works available to users, by means of dedicated terminals, within those establishments.

               3.

               Article 5(3)(n) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted to mean that it does not extend to acts such as the printing out of works on paper or their storage on a USB stick, carried out by users from dedicated terminals installed in publicly accessible libraries covered by that provision. However, such acts may, if appropriate, be authorised under national legislation transposing the exceptions or limitations provided for in Article 5(2)(a) or (b) of that directive provided that, in each individual case, the conditions laid down by those provisions are met.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-439/12: Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission

text:
               1.12.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 373/11

         Action brought on 5 October 2012 — Trefilerías Quijano v Commission
   (Case T-439/12)
   2012/C 373/18
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: Trefilerías Quijano, SA (Los Corrales de Buelna, Spain) (represented by: F. González Díaz and P. Herrero Prieto, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the General Court should:

               —

               annul, pursuant to Article 264 TFEU, the decision of the European Commission of 25 July 2012 in Case COMP/38.344 — prestressing steel;

               —

               require the Commission to provide, in accordance with Article 24 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Article 64(3)(d) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, the documents, calculations and other matters of law and/or fact that served as the basis to grant the requests for inability to pay of Proderac, CB, ITAS, OriMartin and Siderúrgica Latina Martin and/or to accept the reduction in the fine of AreclorMittal;

               —

               in any event, order the European Commission to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The pleas in law and the main arguments are the same as those raised in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission.


title: Case T-51/15: Action brought on 3 February 2015 — PAN Europe v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/33

         Action brought on 3 February 2015 — PAN Europe v Commission
   (Case T-51/15)
   (2015/C 118/42)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Kloostra, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the Commission’s decision of 24 November 2014 with reference Ares(2014)3900631 (‘the contested decision’), in which the Commission confirmed for the most part its decision of 3 June 2014 with reference Ares(2014)2150615 in which the Commission took a decision on the request for information of PAN Europe of 3 January 2014 (registered by the Commission on 6 January 2014);

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

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

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that by adopting the contested decision, the Commission acted in breach of and wrongly did not or only partially apply Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006, because:

                           —

                           the Commission acted in breach of Article 2(1)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 by overlooking the fact that the requested information qualifies as environmental information;

                           —

                           the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 by not interpreting the ground of refusal of Article 4(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 in conformity with Article 4(3) second paragraph of the Aarhus Convention or/and in a sufficient restrictive way, by not weighing the specific interest of protection of the decision-making process invoked by the Commission against the general interests of the disclosure of environmental information and by not stating sufficient reasons for the refusal;

                           —

                           the Commission acted in breach of the Articles 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1367/2006 and 4 of Regulation 1049/2001 by not examining specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access and by not justifying for each specific document for which reason it should not be disclosed.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Commission by adopting the Contested Decision acted in breach of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, especially of Article 4 of that Regulation and/or more specifically of Article 4(3) thereof because it failed to demonstrate that the invoked ground of refusal applies, it wrongly did not weigh the interests served with disclosure and wrongly and in breach of Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 did not examine specifically and individually the documents referred to in the request for access to documents.


title: Case C-379/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of  21 September 2005  in Amurta S.G.P.S. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam by order of that court of 21 September 2005 in Amurta S.G.P.S. v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam
   (Case C-379/05)
   (2006/C 22/06)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Gerechtshof te Amsterdam of 21 September 2005, received at the Court Registry on 17 October 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between Amurta S.G.P.S. and Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst/Amsterdam on the following questions:

               1.

               Is the exemption under Article 4 of the Wet op de dividendbelasting 1965 [the 1965 Law on the Taxation of Dividends], as described in paragraphs 5.3 to 5.5 of this judgment, in conjunction with the exemption under Article 4a of that Law compatible with the provisions on the free movement of capital (Articles 56 to 58, formerly Articles 73b to 73d) of the EC Treaty, given that the exemption is applicable only to dividend payments to shareholders liable to corporation tax in the Netherlands or to foreign shareholders with a permanent establishment in the Netherlands, with the shares forming part of the assets of that permanent establishment, to whom the holding exemption under Article 13 of the Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 [the 1969 Company Taxation Law] applies?

               2.

               Does the answer to the question posed at 6.1 depend on whether the State of residence of a foreign shareholder/company to which the exemption under Article 4 of the Law does not apply grants that shareholder/company full credit for Netherlands dividend tax?


title: Case F-98/07: Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Petrilli v Commission

text:
               8.12.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 297/48

         Action brought on 3 October 2007 — Petrilli v Commission
   (Case F-98/07)
   (2007/C 297/96)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Nicole Petrilli (Sint Stevens Woluwe, Belgium) (represented by: J.L. Lodomez, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action for annulment admissible and well founded;

               —

               annul the decision of 20 July 2007 by which the appointing authority dismissed the applicant's request, brought on the basis of Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’), for the renewal of her contract in DG ‘Research’ of the Commission;

               —

               annul any decision that the Commission may make on the complaint, brought by the applicant in parallel to the present action and to an action to stay the appointing authority's decision of 20 July 2007;

               —

               declare the present action for damages admissible and well founded;

               —

               order the Commission to permit the applicant to return to her post as a member of the contract staff in Unit ‘T2’ of DG ‘Research’ for a period of 18 months; couple with that order a periodic penalty payment of EUR 1 000 for each day of delay;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant, by way of damages for the material loss caused by the loss of remuneration as a consequence of the refusal to renew her contract, a sum corresponding to the remuneration which she would have received if she had been able to continue her contract as a member of the contract staff until the expiration of the three years;

               —

               order the Commission to make good the additional loss suffered by the applicant as a result of the loss of a chance of obtaining a contract for an indefinite period in the future Research Executive Agency (REA), following the lack of renewal of the abovementioned contract and the denial to her of the possibility of completing her mission in the Commission and of deepening thereby her experience by continuing to carry out that mission;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the applicant, as compensation for the non-material loss caused by the decision not to renew her contract, a sum the amount of which is to be determined by the Tribunal, provisionally set at EUR 1, subject to an express reservation that that sum may be increased in the course of proceedings;

               —

               order the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of her action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law, the first of which alleges breach of the principle of legality and Article 88 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants (CEOS). The applicant submits that the decision refusing to renew her contract as a member of the contract staff, taken on the basis of the Commission decision of 28 April 2004 on the maximum duration for the recourse to non-permanent staff in the Commission services, precludes the operation of Article 88 of the CEOS which would allow her contract to be renewed for a new period of 18 months. The decision of 28 April 2004 is illegal inasmuch as it introduces restrictions on the rights laid down by the provisions of the Staff Regulations.
   The second plea in law alleges breach of the principle of sound administration, of the duty to have regard to the interests of members of staff and to the interests of the service. The applicant submits that the contested decision does not take into account her personal situation, the interests of the service or those of the future agency which is to be established.
   The third plea in law alleges a failure to state sufficient reasons and an infringement of Article 3b of the CEOS. The applicant submits in particular that the automatic refusal to renew her contract, because she had reached the ceiling of six years laid down in the decision of 28 April 2004, is counter to the philosophy of Article 3c of the CEOS, which is founded on the wish to employ persons under a contract for a fixed period in order to fulfil tasks in specialised fields for the time necessary for the accomplishment of a specific task.
   The fourth plea in law alleges that the decision of 28 April 2004 infringes Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43), the general principles of European labour law, the social rights of workers and, in particular, the principle of stability in employment and the principle of non-discrimination. As regards the last of those, the applicant submits that the ceiling of six years applies only to members of the contract staff falling under Article 3b of the CEOS, whilst those falling under Article 3a of the CEOS have the possibility of having an indefinite contract.


               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/3

         Taking of the oath by the new members of the Court of First Instance
   (2007/C 269/06)
   Appointed Judges at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the period from 1 September 2007 to 31 August 2013 by decisions of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 25 April 2007 (1) and 23 May 2007 (2), Mr Dittrich, Mr Soldevila Fragoso and Mr Truchot took the oath before the Court of Justice on 17 September 2007.
   Appointed Judge at the Court of First Instance of the European Communities for the period from 17 September 2007 to 31 August 2010 by decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 25 April 2007 (3), Mr Frimodt Nielsen took the oath before the Court of Justice on 17 September 2007.

      (1)  OJ L 114 of 1.5.2007, p. 27.

      (2)  OJ L 139 of 31.5.2007, p. 32.

      (3)  OJ L 114 of 1.5.2007, p. 26.


title: Case C-419/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — WebMindLicenses Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Value added tax — Directive 2006/112/EC — Articles 2, 24, 43, 250 and 273 — Place of supply of electronically supplied services — Artificial fixing of that place by means of an arrangement not reflecting economic reality — Abuse of rights — Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 — Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Articles 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51(1) and 52(1) and (3) — Rights of the defence — Right to be heard — Use by the tax authorities of evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not been concluded — Interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails)

text:
               22.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 68/16

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 December 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi bíróság — Hungary) — WebMindLicenses Kft v Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság
   (Case C-419/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Value added tax - Directive 2006/112/EC - Articles 2, 24, 43, 250 and 273 - Place of supply of electronically supplied services - Artificial fixing of that place by means of an arrangement not reflecting economic reality - Abuse of rights - Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 7, 8, 41, 47, 48, 51(1) and 52(1) and (3) - Rights of the defence - Right to be heard - Use by the tax authorities of evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not been concluded - Interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails))
   (2016/C 068/20)
   Language of the case: Hungarian

      Referring court

   Fővárosi Közigazgatási és Munkaügyi bíróság

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: WebMindLicenses Kft

      Defendant: Nemzeti Adó- és Vámhivatal Kiemelt Adó- és Vám Főigazgatóság

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, in order to determine whether, in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, a licensing agreement concerning the making available of know-how enabling operation of a website by which interactive audiovisual services were supplied, concluded with a company established in a Member State other than that in which the company granting the licence is established, arose from an abuse of rights designed to benefit from the fact that the rate of value added tax applicable to those services was lower in that other Member State, the fact that the manager and sole shareholder of the latter company was the creator of that know-how, that that same person exercised influence or control over the development and exploitation of that know-how and over the supply of the services which were based on it and that management of the financial transactions, staff and technical instruments necessary for the supply of those services was carried out by subcontractors, and the reasons which may have led the company granting the licence to make the know-how at issue available to a company established in that other Member State instead of exploiting it itself, do not appear decisive in themselves.
               It is incumbent upon the referring court to analyse all the circumstances of the main proceedings in order to determine whether that agreement constituted a wholly artificial arrangement concealing the fact that the services at issue were not actually supplied by the company acquiring the licence, but were in fact supplied by the company granting it, examining in particular whether the establishment of the place of business or fixed establishment of the company acquiring the licence was not genuine, whether that company, for the purpose of engaging in the economic activity concerned, did not possess an appropriate structure in terms of premises and human and technical resources and whether it did not engage in that economic activity in its own name and on its own behalf, under its own responsibility and at its own risk.

               2.

               EU law must be interpreted as meaning that, if an abusive practice is found which has resulted in the place of supply of services being fixed in a Member State other than the Member State where it would have been fixed in the absence of that abusive practice, the fact that value added tax has been paid in that other Member State in accordance with its legislation does not preclude an adjustment of that tax in the Member State in which the place where those services have actually been supplied is located.

               3.

               Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax must be interpreted as meaning that the tax authorities of a Member State which are examining whether value added tax is chargeable in respect of supplies of services that have already been subject to that tax in other Member States are required to send a request for information to the tax authorities of those other Member States when such a request is useful, or even essential, for determining that value added tax is chargeable in the first Member State.

               4.

               EU law must be interpreted as not precluding, for the purposes of the application of Article 4(3) TEU, Article 325 TFEU and Articles 2, 250(1) and 273 of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, the tax authorities from being able, in order to establish the existence of an abusive practice concerning value added tax, to use evidence obtained without the taxable person’s knowledge in the context of a parallel criminal procedure that has not yet been concluded, by means, for example, of the interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails, provided that the obtaining of that evidence in the context of the criminal procedure and its use in the context of the administrative procedure do not infringe the rights guaranteed by EU law.

               5.

               In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, by virtue of Articles 7, 47 and 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union it is incumbent upon the national court which reviews the legality of the decision founded on such evidence adjusting value added tax to verify, first, whether the interception of telecommunications and seizure of emails were means of investigation provided for by law and were necessary in the context of the criminal procedure and, secondly, whether the use by the tax authorities of the evidence obtained by those means was also authorised by law and necessary. It is incumbent upon that court, furthermore, to verify whether, in accordance with the general principle of observance of the rights of the defence, the taxable person had the opportunity, in the context of the administrative procedure, of gaining access to that evidence and of being heard concerning it. If the national court finds that the taxable person did not have that opportunity or that that evidence was obtained in the context of the criminal procedure, or used in the context of the administrative procedure, in breach of Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, it must disregard that evidence and annul that decision if, as a result, the latter has no basis. That evidence must also be disregarded if the national court is not empowered to check that it was obtained in the context of the criminal procedure in accordance with EU law or cannot at least satisfy itself, on the basis of a review already carried out by a criminal court in an inter partes procedure, that it was obtained in accordance with EU law.

      (1)  OJ C 439, 8.12.2014.


title: Case C-78/14 P: Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/26

         Appeal brought on 13 February 2014 by the European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 12 December 2013 in Case T-117/12 ANKO v Commission
   (Case C-78/14 P)
   2014/C 102/36
   Language of the case: Greek

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: D. Triantafyllou and B. Conte)

      Other party to the proceedings: ANKO AE Antiprosopeion, Emporiou kai Viomichanias

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The Commission concluded, with two separate consortiums of which the respondent ΑΝΚΟ was a member, agreements for the granting of funding for the ‘OASIS’ and ‘PERFORM’ projects within the framework of the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities.
   In the context of the agreement at issue, the Commission claims that the General Court misinterpreted the general terms of the agreement and in particular paragraph (3)(d) of Section II.5 (and incidentally Section ΙΙ.14, second subparagraph of paragraph (1)).
   The misinterpretation of the general terms of the agreement can be broken down into the following particular grounds of appeal:

               1.

               An erroneous assessment of the serious and systematic nature of the irregularities as a ground for suspension;

               2.

               An erroneous assessment of the possibility/risk of repetition of the irregularities;

               3.

               An erroneous inference from the ad hoc adjustment;

               4.

               Misinterpretation of the option to use average costs and erroneous extension to use of fictitious costs — distortion of the evidence;

               5.

               Confusion of the criteria for suspension (suspicion) and the criteria for eligibility (certainty).


title: Case C-596/13 P: Appeal brought on 21 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-465/11: Globula v European Commission

text:
               1.3.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 61/2

         Appeal brought on 21 November 2013 by European Commission against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 6 September 2013 in Case T-465/11: Globula v European Commission
   (Case C-596/13 P)
   2014/C 61/03
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: European Commission (represented by: K. Herrmann, L. Armati, Agents)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Globula a.s., Czech Republic

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) of 6 September 2013, notified to the Commission on 11 September 2013, in Case T-465/11 Globula v European Commission;

               —

               rule that the first plea at first instance is not well founded and refer the case back to the General Court for consideration of the second and third pleas at first instance; and

               —

               reserve the costs of the proceedings at first instance and on.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   According to the Commission the contested judgment should be set aside on the following grounds:

               First, violation of Articles 288 and 297(1) TFEU, by finding that the rules of the Second Gas Directive (1) apply to the case at hand: this first set of arguments advanced by the Commission will deal with the question whether the General Court was correct in holding (implicitly) that the Commission applied the Third Gas Directive (2) retroactively.

               Second, the General Court erred in its legal characterisation of the facts and failed to properly apply the legal standard that it itself had announced: assuming that the General Court was correct in holding that application of the substantive rules of the Third Gas Directive would have been retroactive (quod non), the question whether the rules contained in Article 36 of the Third Gas Directive constitute an indivisible whole from the point of view of the time at which they take effect will be addressed in order to assess whether the General Court was also correct to hold that retroactive application of the procedural rules contained in that Directive was similarly prohibited.

               In Commission's view, the assessment of the notified exemption decision in question on the basis of the procedural and substantive rules laid down in the Third Gas Directive did not entail a retroactive application of that act but is consistent with the principle of immediate application under which a provision of Union law applies from the time it enters into force to the future effects of a situation which arose under the old rule.

      (1)  Directive 2003/55/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC.
   OJ L 176, p. 57

      (2)  Directive 2009/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 concerning common rules for the internal market in natural gas and repealing Directive 2003/55/EC.
   OJ L 211, p. 94


title: Case C-240/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten by judgment of that court of 10 June 1999 concerning an application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ)

text:
28.8.1999                 EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 246/17
Action brought on 24 June 1999 by the Commission of                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Finanzgericht
 the European Communities against the French Republic                     Düsseldorf by order of that court of 21 June 1999 in the
                                                                          case of NACHI Europe GmbH against Hauptzollamt
                                                                                Krefeld
                            (Case C-237/99)
                                                                                (Case C-239/99)
                           (1999/C 246/34)
                                                                                (1999/C 246/35)
An action against the French Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
represented by Michel Nolin, of its Legal Service, acting as              European Communities by order of the Finanzgericht Düssel-
Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office            dorf (Financial Court, Düsseldorf) of 21 June 1999, received at
of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                    the Court Registry on 24 June 1999, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                          in the case of NACHI Europe GmbH v Hauptzollamt Krefeld
                                                                          on the following questions:
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:                                                         1. Is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 2849/92 (1) invalid?
— declare that, in the context of various tendering procedures            2. If the first question is to be answered in the affirmative,
     concerning public contracts for the construction of hous-                 from what point in time is Article 1(2) of Regulation (EEC)
     ing which were carried out by offices publics d’aménagement               No 2849/92 to be considered void in regard to the
     et de construction (public development and construction                   plaintiff?
     entities) and by sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
     (low-cost housing companies), the French Republic has
     failed to fulfil its obligations under Directive 93/37/EEC (1),      (1) OJ L 286 of 1.10.1992, p. 2.
     in particular Article 11(2) thereof;
— order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten
                                                                          by judgment of that court of 10 June 1999 concerning an
Failure to comply with the obligation, laid down in Article               application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebola-
11(2) of Directive 93/37/EEC, requiring publication in the                                         get Skandia (publ)
Official Journal of the European Communities: the French auth-
orities take refuge behind the categorisation applied under
national law to offices publics d’aménagement et de construction                                    (Case C-240/99)
(OPACs) and to sociétés anonymes d’habitations à loyer modéré
(SAHLMs), in order to avoid attributing to them the statue of
contracting authorities within the meaning of Article 1(b) of                                       (1999/C 246/36)
the directive. However, the term ‘body governed by public law’
is a term of Community law. Both OPACs and SAHLMs meet                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
all the criteria laid down in Article 1(b) of the directive.              European Communities by judgment of the Regeringsrätten
Although OPACs are entities of an industrial and commercial               on 10 June 1999, received at the Court Registry on 25 June
nature, and although SAHLMs possess the form of commercial                1999, for a preliminary ruling in a case concerning an
companies, they have been established for the specific purpose            application for a rehearing made by Försäkringsaktiebolaget
of meeting needs in the general interest, not having an                   Skandia (publ):
industrial or commercial character (they produce and manage
housing to be let to persons on low incomes), they have legal
personality and they are closely controlled by the State, by              Does an insurance company’s commitment, of the kind
regional or local authorities or by other bodies governed by              which Skandia plans to assume, to run the business of a
public law (in the case of OPACs, as regards the composition              wholly-owned subsidiary constitute an insurance transaction
of their administrative board and the power of control                    or insurance transactions within the meaning of Article 13B(a)
exercised by the State, and in the case of SAHLMs, as regards             of the Sixth Directive? (1)
the power of control).
                                                                          (1) Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                              harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 54.                                              turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
                                                                              basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-503/14: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 21, 45 and 49 TFEU — Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area — Freedom of movement for persons — Freedom of movement for workers — Freedom of establishment — Taxation of natural persons on capital gains resulting from a share exchange — Taxation of natural persons on capital gains resulting from a transfer of all the assets used in the exercise of a business or professional activity — Exit taxation of individuals — Immediate recovery of taxation — Difference in treatment between natural persons who exchange shares and maintain their residence in the national territory and those who make such an exchange and transfer their residence to the territory of another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area — Difference in treatment between natural persons transferring all the assets related to an activity carried out on an individual basis to a company with its head office and effective management in Portugal and those who carry out such a transfer to a company with its head office or its effective management in the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area — Proportionality)

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 December 2016 — European Commission v Portuguese Republic
   (Case C-503/14) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 21, 45 and 49 TFEU - Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area - Freedom of movement for persons - Freedom of movement for workers - Freedom of establishment - Taxation of natural persons on capital gains resulting from a share exchange - Taxation of natural persons on capital gains resulting from a transfer of all the assets used in the exercise of a business or professional activity - Exit taxation of individuals - Immediate recovery of taxation - Difference in treatment between natural persons who exchange shares and maintain their residence in the national territory and those who make such an exchange and transfer their residence to the territory of another Member State of the European Union or the European Economic Area - Difference in treatment between natural persons transferring all the assets related to an activity carried out on an individual basis to a company with its head office and effective management in Portugal and those who carry out such a transfer to a company with its head office or its effective management in the territory of another Member State of the European Union or of the European Economic Area - Proportionality))
   (2017/C 053/02)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: G. Braga da Cruz and W. Roels, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Portugal (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, M. Rebelo and J. Martins da Silva, acting as Agents)

      Intervener in support of the defendant: Federal Republic of Germany (represented by T. Henze and K. Petersen, acting as Agents)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 10(9)(a) of the Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Singulares (Code on income tax of natural persons), according to which, for a taxable person who loses his status as a resident in Portugal, for taxation purposes for the year of such loss of residence status, the amount which, under Article 10(8) of that code, was not taxed when the shares were exchanged is to be reckoned as a capital gain, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 21, 45 and 49 TFEU and Articles 28 and 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area of 2 May 1992;

               2.

               Declares that, by adopting and maintaining in force Article 38(1)(a) of the same code, which reserves entitlement to the tax deferral provided for by that provision to natural persons who transfer all the assets used in the exercise of a business or professional activity to a company which has its head office or effective management in Portugal, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 49 TFEU and Article 31 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area;

               3.

               Orders the Portuguese Republic to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission;

               4.

               Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 19.1.2015.


title: Case T-316/11: Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire — Freezing of funds — Obligation to state reasons)

text:
               29.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 319/19

         Judgment of the General Court of 16 September 2011 — Kadio Morokro v Council
   (Case T-316/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Freezing of funds - Obligation to state reasons)
   2011/C 319/39
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Mathieu Kadio Morokro (Cocody, Ivory Coast) (represented by: S. Le Damany, lawyer)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and G. Étienne, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 10), in so far as they concern the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Decision 2011/221/CFSP of 6 April 2011 amending Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 93, p. 20), and, second, Council Regulation (EU) No 330/2011 of 6 April 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, in so far as they concern Mr Mathieu Kadio Morokro.

               2.

               Maintains the effects of Decision 2011/221 as far as concerns Mr Kadio Morokro until the annulment of Regulation No 330/2011 takes effect.

               3.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to pay, in addition to its own costs, the costs incurred by Mr Kadio Morokro.

      (1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.


title: Case C-259/13: Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Elena Recinto-Pfingsten v Swiss International Air Lines AG

text:
               14.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 112/26

         Order of the President of the Court of 6 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Elena Recinto-Pfingsten v Swiss International Air Lines AG
   (Case C-259/13) (1)

   2014/C 112/33
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.


title: Case C-558/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative Court (United Kingdom) made on 17 December 2007 — The Queen on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Limited, Hercules Incorporated v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

text:
               23.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 51/36

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative Court (United Kingdom) made on 17 December 2007 — The Queen on the application of S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Limited, Hercules Incorporated v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   (Case C-558/07)
   (2008/C 51/60)
   Language of the case: English
   Referring court
   High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division) Administrative Court
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: S.P.C.M. SA, C.H. Erbslöh KG, Lake Chemicals and Minerals Limited, Hercules Incorporated

      Defendant: Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
   Questions referred

               1.

               In light of the fact that the registration requirements in Title II of the REACH Regulation (1) do not apply to polymers by virtue of Article 2(9) of the Regulation, does the reference to ‘monomer substances’ in Article 6(3) mean:

                           (a)

                           reacted monomers, that is monomers which have reacted together such that they are indissociable from the polymer of which they form part;

                           (b)

                           unreacted monomers, that is monomers that are residual to the polymerisation process and which retain their own chemical identities and properties separate from the polymer after that process is complete; or

                           (c)

                           both reacted and unreacted monomers?

               2.

               If the answer to question 1 is either (a) or (c), is the application of Article 6(3) to manufacturers or importers of polymers unlawful by reason that the requirements are irrational, discriminatory or disproportionate?

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC (OJ L 396, p. 1)


title: Judgment of the Court of 24 September 2014 in Case E-7/14 — EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Full registration tax on leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway)

text:
               16.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 122/5

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 24 September 2014
   in Case E-7/14
   EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway
   (Failure by an EEA State to fulfil its obligations — Freedom to provide services — Article 36 EEA — Full registration tax on leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway)
   (2015/C 122/06)
   In Case E-7/14, EFTA Surveillance Authority v The Kingdom of Norway — APPLICATION for a declaration that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 EEA, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 24 September 2014, the operative part of which is as follows:
   The Court hereby:

               1.

               Declares that by maintaining in force national rules which provide that a full amount of registration tax is due for foreign-registered leased motor vehicles temporarily imported by Norwegian residents to Norway, without the person having any right to an exemption or refund where the vehicle is neither intended to be used essentially in Norway on a permanent basis nor in fact used in that manner, the Kingdom of Norway has failed to fulfil its obligations arising from Article 36 EEA.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Norway to bear the costs of the proceedings.