title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d'Instance, Saint-Denis, by judgments of that court of 9 December 1996 in the cases of Société Béton Express v. Direction Régionale des Douanes, Société Nouvelle de Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes, Société Bourbon Lumière v. Direction Régionale des Douanes and Société Ouest Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes - Intervener: Region of La Réunion (Cases C-405/96, C-406/96, C-407/96 and C-408/96)

text:
22 . 2 . 97               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 54/ 15
      which provides that 'the said regions must coincide                  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
      with administrative units larger than communes and
       comprise administrative units on which statistics are               Concerning annulment
       available for the reference wine years ', by identifying
       production regions with Member States ?                             — Inadequacy and contradictory nature of the grounds of
                                                                                the judgment — Error of law: the system in
(') OJ No L 84, 27. 3 . 1987, p. 1 .                                             Martinique, voluntarily limiting imports but with an
( 2 ) OJ No L4S , 18 . 2 . 1988 , p . 15 .                                       aggregate quota ( 15% ) greater than that in
                                                                                metropolitan France (3 % ), was necessarily of the same
                                                                                kind as that applying in the latter territory. It is
                                                                                profoundly contradictory to say that the arrangement
                                                                                at national level is not of an exclusively State nature
                                                                                whereas the local arrangement in Martinique is of a
                                                                                State nature .
Appeal brought on 19 December 1996 by Somaco Sari
against the judgment delivered on 18 September 1996 by                     Concerning compensation
the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of the Court
of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T                   — In the light of three successive applications to the
387/94 between Asia Motor France SA and Others and                               Court of First Instance ( for declarations of failure to
          the Commission of the European Communities                             act and annulment ), it is beyond dispute that the
                          ( Case C-401 /96 P )                                   Commission has applied Community law in an
                                                                                unlawful way, in addition by blocking the matter for
                              ( 97/C 54/21 )                                     eleven years . It would be extraordinary if such
                                                                                conduct were incapable of constituting a wrongful act
                                                                                or omission involving contractual liability on the part
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 18 September                         of the Commission, requiring it to make good the
1996 by the Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition, of                             damage expressly specified and clearly originating
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities                          from the very conduct objected to .
in Case T-387/94 between Asia Motor France SA, Jean
Michel Cesbron, Monin Automobiles SA, Europe Auto                          (■) OJ No L 336 , 9 . 11 . 1996 , p . 24 .
Service (EAS ) and Somaco Sari and the Commission of the
European Communities was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
 1996 by Somaco Sari, represented by Jean Claude
Fourgoux, of the Paris Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Pierrot Schiltz, 4 Rue                       Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal
Beatrix de Bourbon .
                                                                           d'Instance, Saint-Denis , by judgments of that court of
                                                                           9 December 1996 in the cases of Société Béton Express v.
The appellant claims that the Court should :                               Direction Régionale des Douanes, Société Nouvelle de
                                                                           Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes , Société
                                                                           Bourbon Lumière v. Direction Régionale des Douanes and
— set aside the part of the judgment of the Court of First                 Société Ouest Concassage v. Direction Régionale des
       Instance of 18 September 1996 (') dismissing its                             Douanes — Intervener: Region of La Réunion
       application for annulment and damages,
                                                                               ( Cases C-405/96, C-406/96, C-407/96 and C-408/96 )
                                                                                ( 97/C 54/22 )
— pursuant to Article 54 of the Statute of the Court of
       Justice:
                                                                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
       — annul      the     decision       of the  Commission      of      European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal
            13 October 1994 in so far as it rejects Somaco's               d'Instance ( District Court ), Saint-Denis , of 9 December
            complaint,                                                      1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
                                                                           23 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling, in the cases
       — order the Commission, under Articles 178 and 215                  of Société Béton Express v. Direction Régionale des
                                                                           Douanes, Société Nouvelle de Concassage v. Direction
            of the Treaty, to make good the damage caused to
                                                                            Régionale de Douanes , Société Bourbon Lumière v.
            the complainant by the institutions, and,
                                                                            Direction Régionale des Douanes and Société Ouest
            consequently, to fix the quantum of damages at
            the amount of interest at the rate of 9,75 % on the             Concassage v. Direction Régionale des Douanes, on the
                                                                            following question :
            sums at which the main damage is evaluated since
            the decision of 5 December 1991 deciding not to
                                                                            Following the judgment delivered in Legros [ Case C-163/
            pursue the case up to the date of judgment,                     90 Administration des Douanes et Droits Indirects v.
                                                                            Legros and Others [ 1992] ECR I-4625J on 16 July 1992,
 — order the Commission to pay the full costs, both of                      has Law No 92-676 of 17 July 1992, adopted in
       these proceedings and of the proceedings which led to                implementation of the Decision 89/688 of the Council of
        the judgment of the Court of First Instance of                      Ministers of the European Communities of 22 December
        18 September 1996 .                                                 1989 ('), had the effect of replacing a charge having
 ---pagebreak--- No C 54/ 16             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                              22 . 2 . 97
equivalent effect to a customs duty by a true internal tax                       to repay such maternity pay if she does not return to
which is non-discriminatory and thus complies with both                          work for one month on the conclusion of maternity
the letter and the spirit of Article 95 of the Treaty, having                    leav.e .
regard, in particular, to the powers of exemption which it
confers on the regional authorities, giving rise, in La
                                                                         2 . A condition that where a woman, who is absent on
Reunion, to the decision of the Regional Council of
1 1 December 1 992 ?                                                             paid sick leave with a pregnancy related illness, gives
                                                                                birth during such absence, her maternity leave may be
                                                                                backdated to the later date of either six weeks before
(') Of No L 399 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 46 .
                                                                                the expected week of child birth or when the sickness
                                                                                leave began .
                                                                         3 . A prohibition on a woman , who is unfit for work for
                                                                                any reason whilst on maternity leave, from taking paid
Reference for a preliminary ruling made by the Industrial                        sick leave, unless she elects to return to work and
Tribunal, Manchester, by decision of that court of                               terminate her maternity leave .
15 October 1996 in the case of M. Boyle, A. Taylor, J.
Mansley, A. Khan, S. Moores and G. Atkinson and the
              Equal Opportunities Commission                             4 . A condition limiting the time during which annual
                         ( Case C-411 /96 )                                      leave accrues to the statutory minimum period of 14
                                                                                weeks maternity leave and accordingly excluding any
                            ( 97/C 54/23 )
                                                                                other period of maternity leave .
The Court of Justice of the European Communities has
received a reference for a preliminary ruling made by a                  5 . A condition limiting the time in which pensionable
decision   of the      Industrial      Tribunal , Manchester,   of              service accrues during maternity leave to when the
15 October 1996 , in the proceedings between M. Boyle,                          woman is in receipt of contractual or statutory
A. Taylor, J. Mansley, A. Khan, S. Moores and G.                                maternity pay and accordingly excluding any period of
Atkinson and the Equal Opportunities Commission which                           unpaid maternity leave .
was lodged at the Court Registry on 23 December 1996
on the following questions :                                             (') Council Directive 75/ 1 17/EEC of 10 February 1975 on the
                                                                               approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
In circumstances such as those of the present cases , do any                   the application of the principle of equal pay for men and
of the following matters infringe the prohibition of unfair                    women ( OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19 ).
and/or unfavourable treatment of women                 because of        ( 2 ) Council Directive 76/207/EEC of 9 February 1976 on the
pregnancy, child birth , maternity and/or sickness in                          implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men
relation thereto under Community law ( in particular                           and women as regards access to employment, vocational
                                                                               training and promotion , and working conditions ( OJ No L 39 ,
Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome and/or Council                               14 . 2 . 1976 , p. 40 ).
Directives 75/ 1 17/EEC ('), and/or 76/207/EEC ( 2 ) and/or              ( ! ) Council Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the
92/ 85/EEC ) (■'):                                                             introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the
                                                                               safety and health at work of pregnant workers and workers
1 . A condition that maternity pay, beyond the statutory                       who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding ( 10th
    maternity pay, is paid only if the woman states that                       individual directive within the meaning of Article 16 ( 1 ) of
    she intends to return to work and agrees to be liable                      Directive 89/39 1 /EEC ( OJ No L 348 , 28 . 11 . 1992 , p. 1 ).


title: Case C-440/05: Action brought on  8 December 2005  by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union

text:
               28.1.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/10

         Action brought on 8 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Council of the European Union
   (Case C-440/05)
   (2006/C 22/18)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Council of the European Union was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 8 December 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by W. Bogensberger and R. Troosters, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission of the European Communities claims that the Court should:

               —

               declare that Council Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA of 12 July 2005 to strengthen the criminal-law framework for the enforcement of the law against ship-source pollution (1) is unlawful;

               —

               annul that framework decision;

               —

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

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Having regard to the Court's functional approach in Case C-176/03 Commission v Council [2005] ECR I-0000 and also to the fact that the measures provided for in Articles 1 to 10 of Framework Decision 2005/667/JHA constitute criminal law measures necessary to ensure the efficacy of the common transport policy as developed by Directive 2005/35 EC, (2) the Commission considers that the entire Framework Decision infringes Article 47 EU, on account of its indivisibility, and is therefore unlawful.

      (1)  OJ L 255, 30.09.2005, p. 164.

      (2)  Directive 2005/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September 2005 on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of penalties for infringements, OJ L 255, 30.09.2005, p. 11.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August 1998 in the case of Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer (Case C-314/98)

text:
C 327/8                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                        24.10.98
    According to the Commission, that comparison does                   preliminary ruling in the case of Schutzverband gegen
    not explain the replanting of 2 446 hectares of vines.              Unwesen in der Wirtschaft e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei
                                                                        Haus Cramer GmbH & Co. KG on the following
                                                                        question:
    The Italian authorities' failure to shed any light on
    that point led the Commission to conclude that the                  Does Council Regulation (EEC) No 2081/92 of 14 July
    area must be considered to have been unlawfully                    1992 on the protection of geographical indications and
    planted, giving rise without any financial aim to                   designations of origin for agricultural products and
    expenditure for the grubbing-up of that same surface                foodstuffs (1) preclude application of a national provision
    area' and it set the adjustment at LIT 31 861 816 140,              which prohibits the misleading use of a simple
    multiplying the number of hectares considered to be                 geographical designation of origin, that is, an indication in
    illegally planted by the value of the average cessation             the case of which there is no link between the
    premium paid for Apulia between 1989 and 1992                       characteristics of the product and its geographical origin?
    pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 (7).
                                                                        (1) OJ L 208, 24.7.1992, p. 1.
    The Italian Government maintains that the adjustment
    is unlawful because Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/
    87 (8) on the common organisation of the market in
    wine is silent on the question of financial penalties
                                                                        Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandes-
    applicable to individual cases and merely provides, in
                                                                        gericht Köln, by order of that court of 4 August 1998 in
    respect of vines planted or re-planted without
                                                                        proceedings concerning an administrative fine imposed on
    authorisation, for compulsory distillation of the yield
                                                                                Arnold Claasen
    to be used in the preparation of alcohol with an actual
    alcoholic strength by volume of at least 80 %                                                (Case C-313/98)
    (Articles 6(3) and 7(4)).                                                                     (98/C 327/11)
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    In any case, the subtraction of the adjustment amount               European Communities by order of the Oberlandesgericht
    from the sum paid for grubbing-up with a premium                    Köln (Higher Regional Court, Cologne) of 4 August 1998,
    pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 1442/88 seems                       received at the Court Registry on 13 August 1998, for a
    unwarranted, since those amounts were paid for the                  preliminary ruling in the proceedings concerning an
    grubbing-up of existing vines.                                      administrative fine imposed on Arnold Claasen, on the
                                                                        following question (1):
(1) OJ L 163, 6.6.1998, p. 28.
(2) OJ L 388, 30.12.1989, p. 18.                                        Does the amount of the charge payable under Article 8(1)
(3) OJ, English Special Edition 1970(I), p. 218.                        of the Agreement depend solely on the number of
(4) OJ L 337, 4.12.1990, p. 3.                                          axles fitted to the motor vehicle or articulated vehicle
(5) OJ L 350, 14.12.1990, p. 43.                                        combination in question, regardless of whether an axle is
(6) OJ L 67, 15.3.1990, p. 21.
                                                                        used or raised during the journey, or are tandem axles/
(7) OJ L 132, 28.5.1988, p. 3.
(8) OJ L 84, 27.3.1987, p. 1.                                           raisable axles to be left out of account in calculating the
                                                                        charge?
                                                                        (1) Concerning the interpretation of Article 8(1) of the Agreement
                                                                            of 9 February 1994 on the levying of charges for the use of
                                                                            certain roads by heavy commercial vehicles (Bundesgesetzblatt
                                                                            [Federal Gazette], Part II, p. 1768).
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
gerichtshof by order of that court of 2 July 1998 in the
case of Schutzverband gegen Unwesen in der Wirtschaft
e.V. v Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer GmbH & Co.
                                KG                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Nederlandse
                                                                        Raad van State by judgment of that court of 10 August
                        (Case C-312/98)                                 1998 in the case of Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen
                                                                                Directeur van de Dienst Wegverkeer
                          (98/C 327/10)
                                                                                (Case C-314/98)
                                                                                (98/C 327/12)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Bundesgerichts-                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
hof (Federal Court of Justice) of 2 July 1998, which was                European Communities by judgment of the Netherlandse
received at the Court Registry on 12 August 1998, for a                 Raad van State (Netherlands Council of State) of
 ---pagebreak--- 24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 327/9
10 August 1998, received at the Court Registry on                        objective pursued by the national rules concerning the
14 August 1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of                  issue of blank registration certificates if those rules
Snellers Auto's B.V. against Algemeen Directeur van de                   make it impossible to prove that a vehicle is new? Is
Dienst Wegverkeer on the following questions:                            the answer to that question affected by the fact that a
                                                                         parallel importer may agree with his supplier in
                                                                         another Member State that, following the issue of the
1. For the purposes of applying Council Directive 83/                    foreign certificate of registration, the supplier is to
    189/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 88/182/EEC (2),                 seek suspension of the authorisation thus granted and
    to national rules adopted on 9 December 1994, is it                  is to have that suspension lifted when the parallel
    necessary also to take into consideration the                        importer applies for registration in the country of
    amendments introduced after that date by European                    import?
    Parliament and Council Directive 94/10/EC (3), having
    regard to, inter alia, the wording used in the preamble
                                                                    (1) OJ L 109, 26.4.1983, p. 8.
    to the latter directive?
                                                                    (2) OJ L 81, 26.3.1988, p. 75.
                                                                    (3) OJ L 100, 19.4.1994, p. 30.
                                                                    (4) Regeling houdende vaststelling van regels omtrent de wijze
2. If Question 1 is answered in the affirmative: does a                 waarop de datum van eerste toelating tot de openbare weg op
    regulation such as the 1995 Regulation (4) fall within              het kentekenbewijs, dan wel het registratiebewijs van een voer-
    the scope of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended by                    tuig wordt bepaald (Regulation laying down rules concerning
                                                                        the way in which the date of first authorisation of a vehicle
    Directive 88/182/EEC and Directive 94/10/EEC?
                                                                        for use on the public highway is to be determined for the
                                                                        purposes of entry in its registration certificate) (Staatscourant
                                                                        1994, 241).
3. If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
    (a) Must the term technical specification' appearing
        in Article 1(1) of Directive 83/189/EEC, as amended
        by Directive 88/182/EEC, be interpreted as meaning
        that it also covers a regulation such as the 1995
        Regulation?                                                 Action brought on 12 August 1998 by the Commission of
                                                                       the European Communities against the Italian Republic
    (b) If not, does such a regulation fall within the scope                                (Case C-315/98)
        of Article 1(5) of the directive as thus amended
        (which defines the term technical regulation')?                                     (98/C 327/13)
4. Where national rules concerning the issue of blank
    registration certificates do not formally differentiate         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before
    between official importers and parallel importers but           the Court of Justice on 12 August 1998 by the
    in fact make it more difficult for parallel importers to        Commission of the European Communities, represented
    supply vehicles with a blank registration certificate,          by Bernard Mongin and Laura Pignataro, of its Legal
    because they can obtain from abroad only vehicles               Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    which are already registered, and those rules make the          Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
    issue of a blank registration certificate conditional on,       Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
    inter alia, the relevant vehicle imported from another
    Member State having been registered in that other
    Member State for a period not exceeding two days, do
    those rules constitute a measure having an effect               The applicant claims that the Court should:
    equivalent to a quantitative restriction on imports
    which is prohibited by Article 30 of the EC Treaty?
                                                                    Ð Declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                                                                         and administrative provisions needed to implement
5. If Question 4 must be answered in the affirmative, are                Council Directive 95/21/EC of 19 June 1995
    rules such as those contained in the 1995 Regulation                 concerning the enforcement, in respect of shipping
    justified by considerations relating to road safety and/             using Community ports and sailing in the waters
    or protection of the environment, particularly on                    under the jurisdiction of the Member States, of
    account of their link with the requirements applicable               international standards for ship safety, pollution
    to vehicles and with the determination of the date                   prevention and shipboard living and working
    from which vehicles become subject to a general                      conditions (1), the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil
    obligation to undergo periodic tests?
                                                                         its obligations under that directive and the EC Treaty;
6. If Question 5 is answered in the affirmative, must such
    an obstacle to trade be regarded as proportional to the         Ð Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case F-89/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — Goetz v Committee of the Regions (Civil Service — Officials — Non-contractual liability — Action for damages — Admissibility — Point from which period to institute proceedings starts to run — OLAF investigation — Administrative investigation — Disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board — Obligation for the administration to act diligently — Length of disciplinary proceedings — Liability arising from the opening of disciplinary proceedings terminated without a sanction being imposed)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second Chamber) of 19 June 2013 — Goetz v Committee of the Regions
   (Case F-89/11) (1)

   (Civil Service - Officials - Non-contractual liability - Action for damages - Admissibility - Point from which period to institute proceedings starts to run - OLAF investigation - Administrative investigation - Disciplinary proceedings before the Disciplinary Board - Obligation for the administration to act diligently - Length of disciplinary proceedings - Liability arising from the opening of disciplinary proceedings terminated without a sanction being imposed)
   2013/C 252/73
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Charles Dieter Goetz (Linkebeek, Belgium) (represented by: N. Lhoëst and A.-A. Minet, lawyers)

      Defendant: Committee of the Regions (represented by: M.J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, Agent, and by B. Cambier, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the decision of the Committee of the Regions which rejected the applicant’s request, under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations, seeking damages for the non-material and material damage allegedly suffered in connection with administrative and disciplinary proceedings.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action.

               2.

               Orders Mr Goetz to bear his own costs and to pay the costs of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union.

      (1)  OJ C 347, 26.11.2011, p. 45.


title: Case C-678/15: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani v Kathrin Pflanz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Directive 2004/39/EC — Markets in financial instruments — Article 4(1)(2) — Definition of ‘investment services’ — point 1 of Section A of Annex I — Reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments — Potential inclusion of brokering with a view to concluding a portfolio management contract)

text:
               21.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 277/9

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani v Kathrin Pflanz
   (Case C-678/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2004/39/EC - Markets in financial instruments - Article 4(1)(2) - Definition of ‘investment services’ - point 1 of Section A of Annex I - Reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments - Potential inclusion of brokering with a view to concluding a portfolio management contract))
   (2017/C 277/11)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mohammad Zadeh Khorassani

      Defendant: Kathrin Pflanz

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 4(1)(2) of Directive 2004/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on markets in financial instruments, amending Council Directives 85/611/EEC and 93/6/EEC and Directive 2000/12/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 93/22/EEC, read in conjunction with point 1 of Section A of Annex I to that directive, must be interpreted as meaning that the investment service consisting in the reception and transmission of orders in relation to one or more financial instruments does not include brokering with a view to concluding a contract covering portfolio management services.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 21.3.2016.


title: Case C-72/16: Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2016 — Prospector Offshore Drilling SA, Prospector Rig 1 Contracting Company SARL, Prospector Rig 5 Contracting Company SARL, Ensco plc, Ensco Offshore UK Limited, Rowan Companies plc, Rowan Cayman Limited, v Her Majesty's Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

text:
               18.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 136/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 10 February 2016 — Prospector Offshore Drilling SA, Prospector Rig 1 Contracting Company SARL, Prospector Rig 5 Contracting Company SARL, Ensco plc, Ensco Offshore UK Limited, Rowan Companies plc, Rowan Cayman Limited, v Her Majesty's Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
   (Case C-72/16)
   (2016/C 136/23)
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Prospector Offshore Drilling SA, Prospector Rig 1 Contracting Company SARL, Prospector Rig 5 Contracting Company SARL, Ensco plc, Ensco Offshore UK Limited, Rowan Companies plc, Rowan Cayman Limited

      Defendants: Her Majesty's Treasury, Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

      Questions referred

               1.

               Do Articles 49, 56 or 63 TFEU preclude legislation, such as Part 8ZA of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, which governs the relief for expenditure available in relation to the UK taxable profits of a company providing drilling services to the oil industry (an ‘oil contractor’) from activities (the ‘affected trade’) involving the use of certain types of assets (‘relevant assets’) leased from a person ‘associated’ with the oil contractor, that:

                           1.1.

                           for the purposes of computing the profits of the affected trade, imposes a pre-determined cap on the deductibility of payments for leasing relevant assets from associated persons, calculated by reference to the original cost of the leased asset;

                           1.2.

                           states that the amount of payments that have been so disallowed by the cap may be relieved against UK taxable profits (if any) of the oil contractor or other companies within the same group, which do not arise from an affected trade; and

                           1.3.

                           ring-fences profits from the affected trade by preventing UK incurred costs or both UK and non-UK losses from elsewhere in the oil contractor's group from being set off against the profits of the affected trade, but permits them to be set against other profits (if any)?

               2.

               Specifically, do Articles 49, 56 or 63 TFEU preclude such legislation in circumstances where:

                           2.1.

                           an oil contractor subject to UK corporation tax leases its asset from an associated company, not subject to UK corporation tax and incorporated and having its registered office in another Member State; and/or

                           2.2.

                           the circumstances are as set out in 2.1 above and specifically the oil contractor is also incorporated and with its registered office in that other Member State; and/or

                           2.3.

                           the oil contractor subject to UK corporation tax is the subsidiary of a UK parent company which has a further subsidiary, not subject to corporation tax and incorporated and having its registered office in a third country, and the oil contractor leases its asset from that third country subsidiary; and/or

                           2.4.

                           any other relevant combination of place of establishment and/or applicable taxation regime for the oil contractor and/or the asset-owning lessor?

               3.

               Would any of the answers above be different if generally, and/or in the specific case of the Claimants, groups owning oil rigs and providing UK drilling services have no significant net UK profits aside from drilling?

               4.

               Would any of the answers above be different if the purpose of the contested Provisions was to prevent the avoidance of tax by implementing an artificially fragmented corporate structure which had no independent economic reality outside of the group?''


title: Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities

text:
C 331 /2               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                 1 . 11 . 97
Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                                 are formally joined ) the composition of the bench shall be
                                                                      that determined for the first of the cases discussed at a
Mr Moitinho de Almeida and Mr Puissochet, Judges.                     general meeting.
Fourth Chamber                                                        4. For the period ending on 6 October 1998 the lists
                                                                      referred to above are as follows :
Mr Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
                                                                      First Chamber
Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray and Mr Ioannou, Judges .
                                                                      ( President: Mr Wathelet)
Fifth Chamber
Mr Gulmann, President of the Chamber,                                 Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón.
Mr Wathelet, Mr Moitinho de Almeida, Mr Edward, Mr                    Fourth Chamber
Puissochet, Mr Jann and Mr Sevón, Judges.
                                                                      ( President: Mr Ragnemalm)
Sixth Chamber
                                                                      Judge Kapteyn, Judge Murray, Judge Ioannou.
Mr Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber,
Mr Schintgen, Mr Mancini, Mr Kapteyn, Mr Murray, Mr                   Fifth Chamber
Hirsch and Mr Ioannou, Judges.
                                                                      ( President: Mr Gulmann )
2 . For each case assigned to them, the First Chamber and
the Fourth Chamber (to each of which four judges are                  Judge Edward, Judge Jann, Judge Sevón, Judge Wathelet,
attached ) shall be composed of the President of the                  Judge Moitinho de Almeida, Judge Puissochet.
Chamber, . the Judge-Rapporteur, and a third judge
designated in accordance with a list of the judges in order
                                                                      Sixth Chamber
of seniority. At each general meeting the starting point on
that list shall be moved down one name .
                                                                      (President: Mr Ragnemalm )
3 . For each case assigned to a large Chamber — the Fifth
Chamber and the Sixth Chamber, to each of which seven
                                                                      Judge Kapteyn, Judge Murray, Judge Ioannou, Judge
judges are attached — the five judges who are to sit shall            Mancini, Judge Hirsch, Judge Schintgen.
be determined on the basis of a list drawn up for the
judicial year comprising all the judges of the Chamber,
except the President, in the following order:                         Appointment of the First Advocate General
( a ) the judges of the small Chamber to which four judges            In accordance with Article 10 ( 1 ) of the Rules of
      are attached, in order of seniority;                            Procedure the Court of Justice appointed Advocate
                                                                      General Cosmas as First Advocate General for a period of
( b ) the judes of the other small Chamber, in the same               one year starting on 7 October 1997.
      order.
For each case the large Chamber shall be composed of:
— the President,
                                                                      Taking of the oath by a new Member of the Court of First
— the Judge-Rapporteur,                                                           Instance of the European Communities
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/04 )
— three judges appointed in order from the list; the
      starting point on that list shall be moved down one
      name at each general meeting.                                   Following his appointment as Judge of the Court of First
                                                                      Instance of the European Communities by Decision of the
Any judges prevented from sitting shall be replaced in                Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
order from the list. However, should the President of the             of 29 May 1997 ( ! ), Mr Karl Jörg Pirrung took the oath
large Chamber be prevented from sitting, he must be                   before the Court on 11 June 1997.
replaced if possible by the President of the small Chamber.
                                                                       (') OJ L 145 , 5 . 6 . 1997, p. 27.
If the Court, or a Chamber, deems it appropriate to hear
and determine several cases together ( whether or not they


title: Case T-438/09: Action brought on 22 October 2009 — SE.RI.FO v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/41

         Action brought on 22 October 2009 — SE.RI.FO v Commission and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
   (Case T-438/09)
   2009/C 312/68
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Serifo Srl (Naples, Italy) (represented by: R. de Lorenzo, P. Kivel Mazuy and G. Ruberto, lawyers)

      Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (‘EACEA’)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the measure, the date and particulars of which are not known, by which, in the context of the Lifelong Learning Programme, the EACEA approved the list of projects selected for Community co-financing from the transversal programme ‘KA3 ICT Multilateral Projects’, and the reserve list, in so far as the project ‘V-3DAS’ No 505690-2009-LLP-IT-KA3-KA3MP, submitted by Se.Ri.Fo s.r.l., was included in the reserve list instead of in the list of projects selected for funding.

               —

               Annul the notice of 21 September 2009, received on 22 September 2009, by which the EACEA communicated to Se.Ri.Fo. s.r.l. the assessments of the ‘V-3DAS’ project issued by the experts external to the EACEA and the scores awarded.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The applicant took part in the Community Lifelong Learning Programme — Call for Proposals 2009, submitting to the EACEA the V-3DAS project in the context of the transversal programme Key Activity 3 ‘ICT’.
   The assessment of the applications was undertaken by experts external to the Agency, in accordance with the Guide for Applicants 2009. After obtaining 30.5 points out of a maximum of 40 (76.3 % of the maximum score) — as compared with the 31 points necessary in order to be included in the list of projects selected for funding (77.5 % of the maximum score) — the project submitted by the applicant was included in the reserve list, which may be used for the award of additional grants if funds become available following withdrawal of approved projects or following an increase in the budget for the Programme.
   In support of its claims, the applicant submits that the assessments of its project by EACEA’s external experts, and consequently the points awarded by them for each of the award criteria, are vitiated by the inadequate reasoning given, the misapplication of the assessment criteria and the inherently contradictory and illogical nature of the evaluations made. Those irregularities played a decisive role in the exclusion — by no more than 0.5 points — of the applicant’s project from the list of projects selected for funding.
   In that connection, it should be pointed out that Article 109 of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the financial regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities states, in relation to the award of grants, that ‘The award of grants shall be subject to the principles of transparency and equal treatment’.


title: Case T-27/11 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission (Interim proceedings — Application for interim measures — Manifest inadmissibility)

text:
               16.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 120/13

         Order of the President of the General Court of 2 March 2011 — Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband v Commission
   (Case T-27/11 R)
   (Interim proceedings - Application for interim measures - Manifest inadmissibility)
   2011/C 120/32
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Rheinischer Sparkassen- und Giroverband (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and I. Liebach, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Flynn, B. Martenczuk and T. Maxian Rusche, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for a stay of execution of Commission Decision C(2010) 9525 final of 21 December 2010 concerning State aid No MC 8/2009 and C 43/2009 — Germany — WestLB transfers, in so far as it follows therefrom that there must be no new transactions involving Westdeutsche ImmobilienBank AG after 15 February 2011.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of  12 January 2006  in Case C-179/05 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 — Control system in the fisheries sector — Information on catches and fishing effort)

text:
               11.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 60/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 12 January 2006
   in Case C-179/05 Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 - Control system in the fisheries sector - Information on catches and fishing effort)
   (2006/C 60/23)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-179/05 Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M. Nolin) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and A. Colomb) — action for failure to fulfil obligations under Article 226 EC — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of J. Makarczyk, President of the Chamber, R. Silva de Lapuerta and M. Kūris (Rapporteur), Judges; M. Poiares Maduro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 12 January 2006, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that by failing to provide the information required under the first and third indents of Article 19i of Council Regulation 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 2635/97 of 18 December 1997, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that regulation;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 155 of 25.06.2005


title: Case F-78/11: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB (Civil service — ECB Staff — Retroactive extension of the probationary period — Decision to end the contract during the probationary period — Disciplinary proceedings)

text:
               31.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 252/43

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 26 June 2013 — BM v ECB
   (Case F-78/11) (1)

   (Civil service - ECB Staff - Retroactive extension of the probationary period - Decision to end the contract during the probationary period - Disciplinary proceedings)
   2013/C 252/71
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: BM (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: L. Levi and M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (ECB) (represented: initially by P. Embley, M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, and subsequently by M. López Torres and E. Carlini, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application to annul the ECB’s decision to terminate the applicant’s contract during the probationary period because of a disciplinary fault punished by a reprimand.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Executive Board of the European Central Bank of 20 May 2011, which terminates BM’s contract as of 31 October 2011;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Declares that the European Central Bank is to bear its own costs and orders it to pay the costs incurred by BM.

      (1)  OJ C 319, 29.10.11, p. 30.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 20 November 1997 in Case C-188/96 P: Commission of the European Communities v. V (Officials - Removal from post - Statement of reasons)

text:
10. 1. 98             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 7/7
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Bora, of the Florence Bar, with an address for service in
                        (First Chamber)                              Luxembourg at the office of Paolo Benocci, 50 Rue de
                                                                     Vianden.
                    of 20 November 1997
      in Case C-188/96 P: Commission of the European                 The applicant claims in particular that the Court should
                     Communities v. V (1)                            annul a note of the Commission (Directorate-General for
 (Officials Ð Removal from post Ð Statement of reasons)              Agriculture) and a Decision in which the Commission
                                                                     withdrew financial aid allocated under the integrated
                          (98/C 7/13)                                Mediterranean programme in respect of project
                                                                     88.20.IT.006.0 (supply of drinking water in Tuscany).
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                     By order of 1 Octrober 1997 the Court referred the action
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     to the Court of First Instance of the European
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Communities pursuant to Article 47 of the Statute of the
                                                                     Court.
In Case C-188/96 P Commission of the European
Communities represented by Ana Maria Alves Vieira,
assisted by Denis Waelbroeck, appeal against the judgment
of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of the
European Communities (Fifth Chamber) in Case T-40/95,
ECR-SC II-461, seeking to have that judgment set aside,
the other party to the proceedings being V, a former                 Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Protodikio
official of the Commission of the European Communities,              Athinon by order of that court of 24 June 1997 in the
represented by Jean-NoeÈl Louis, Thierry Demaseure,                  Case of Dionisios Diamantis against (1) Greek State and
VeÂronique Leclercq and Ariane Tornel, of the Brussels Bar,          (2) Organismos Ikonomikis Anasigrotisis Epikhiriseon
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the offices                                           (OAE)
of Fiduciaire Myson, 30 Rue de Cessange, the Court (First                                   (Case C-373/97)
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevón, acting for the President
of the First Chamber, D. A. O. Edward and P. Jann                                               (98/C 7/15)
(Rapporteur), Judges; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General; R.
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 20 November                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
1997, in which it:                                                   European Communities by order of the Protodikio
                                                                     Athinon (Court of First Instance, Athens) of 24 June
1. sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance            1997, received at the Court Registry on 31 October 1997,
     of 28 March 1996 in Case T-40/95 V v. Commission                for a preliminary ruling in the case of Dionisios Diamantis
     to the extent to which, on the one hand, it annulled            against (1) Greek State and (2) Organismos Ikonomikis
     for inadequacy of the statement of the reasons on               Anasigrotisis     Epikhiriseon     (Organization  for   the
     which it was based the Commission's decision of                 Reconstruction of Undertakings) on the following
     18 January 1995 removing Mr V from his post and,                questions:
     on the other hand, ordered the Commission to pay the
     costs, including those relating to the earlier
     interlocutory proceedings;                                      1. In the specific factual circumstances set out in the
                                                                         grounds of [the order for reference] does a question
2. refers the case back to the Court of First Instance for               arise as to the application, both in law and in
     it to adjudicate on the pleas raised by Mr V at first               substance, of Article 281 of the Civil Code, which
     instance;                                                           concerns abusive exercise of the plaintiff's rights, in
                                                                         relation to Articles 25 (1) and 29 (1) of the Second
                                                                         Directive 77/91/EEC (1)?
3. reserves the costs.
(1) OJ C 210, 20. 7. 1996.                                           2. Should the Court of Justice of the European
                                                                         Communities find the above plea well-founded in law
                                                                         and in substance, how will that affect the validity of
                                                                         the ministerial decisions increasing and reducing the
                                                                         capital of the company in question, of which the
                                                                         plaintiff happens to be a shareholder, and, by
Action brought on 1 April 1997 by the Regione Toscana                    extension, are Articles 8 (8) and 10 (1) of Law
   against the Commission of the European Communities                    No 1386/1993 compatible with Community law, in
                                                                         view of the fact that, where Article 281 of the Civil
                       (Case C-180/97)
                                                                         Code does not come into play, it has been held in
                          (98/C 7/14)                                    accordance with the above that those provisions are
                                                                         contrary to the Second Directive?
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of               (1) OJ L 26, 31. 1. 1977, p. 1.
the European Communities on 1 April 1997 by the
Regione Toscana, represented by Vito Vacchi and Lucia


title: Case T-243/12: Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community figurative mark ALOHA 100 % NATURAL — Earlier national word mark ALOA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               10.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 233/9

         Judgment of the General Court of 3 July 2013 — Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer v OHIM
   (Case T-243/12) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community figurative mark ALOHA 100 % NATURAL - Earlier national word mark ALOA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 233/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG (formerly International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG) (Warstein, Germany) (represented by: B. Hein and M.-H. Hoffman, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, then by A. Schifko, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Stuffer SpA (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 March 2012 (Case R 1058/2011-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Stuffer SpA and Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG, formerly International Brands Germany GmbH & Co. KG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Warsteiner Brauerei Haus Cramer KG to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217, 21.7.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 2 December 2004 in Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Conservation and management of resources — Control measures for fishing activities)

text:
               22.1.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 2 December 2004
   in Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Spain (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Conservation and management of resources - Control measures for fishing activities)
   (2005/C 19/05)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   In Case C-42/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: T. van Rijn and S. Pardo Quintillán) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: N. Díaz Abad) – ACTION under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 4 February 2003 – the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, President of Chamber, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur), S. von Bahr, J. Malenovský and U. Lõhmus, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 2 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, for each fishing year 1990 to 1997, by failing:

                           —

                           to adopt the appropriate methods for the use of the quotas assigned to it and to carry out the inspections and other checks required by the applicable Community regulations,

                           —

                           provisionally to prohibit fishing upon exhaustion of the quotas, and

                           —

                           to take all penal or administrative measures which it was required to apply to masters of vessels infringing those regulations or to any other person liable for such infringement,

                     the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 5(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 170/83 of 25 January 1983 establishing a Community system for the conservation and management of fishery resources, Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3760/92 of 20 December 1992 establishing a Community system for fisheries and aquaculture, Articles 1 and 11(1) and (2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2241/87 of 23 July 1987 establishing certain control measures for fishing activities and Articles 2, 21(1) and (2) and 31 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy.

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 101, 26.4.2002.


title: Order of the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 15 May 2000 in Case T-101/00 R: Miguel Ángel Martín de Pablos v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Competition — Non-admission to the tests — Interim relief procedure — Suspension of the competition procedure)

text:
22.7.2000               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 211/21
ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST                                   ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE SECOND
                            INSTANCE                                         CHAMBER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                of 15 May 2000
                           of 2 May 2000
                                                                         in Case T-101/00 R: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos v
in Case T-17/00 R: Willi Rothley and 70 Others v                                  Commission of the European Communities
                       European Parliament
                                                                         (Officials — Competition — Non-admission to the tests —
                                                                         Interim relief procedure — Suspension of the competition
(Proceedings for interim relief — Act of the Parliament —                                            procedure)
Immunity of Members of the Parliament — European Anti-
Fraud Office (OLAF) — Admissibility — Prima facie case                                           (2000/C 211/44)
             — Urgency — Balancing of interests)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
                          (2000/C 211/43)
                                                                         In Case T-101/00 R: Miguel Ángel Martı́n de Pablos, residing
                                                                         in Madrid (Spain), represented by J. Moreno Núñez, of the
                   (Language of the case: German)                        Madrid Bar, Calle Santa Cruz de Marcenado 7, Madrid, v
                                                                         Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Valse-
                                                                         sia, J. Currall and J. Guerra Fernandez) — application for
                                                                         suspension of the procedure in competition COM/A/11/98 —
In Case T-17/00 R: Willi Rothley and 70 Others, Members of               the President of the Second Chamber of the Court of First
the European Parliament, represented by H.-J. Rabe and                   Instance made an order on 15 May 2000, the operative part
G. Berrisch, Rechtsanwälte, Hamburg, of 35 Avenue de                     of which is as follows:
Tervuren, Brussels, v European Parliament (Agents: J. Schoo
and H. Krück), supported by the Council of the European
                                                                         1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.
Union (Agents: J. Aussant, M. Bauer and I. Dı́ez Parra) and by
the Commission of the European Communities (Agents:
C. Timmermans, H.-P. Hartvig and U. Wölker) — application                2. The costs are reserved.
for suspension of operation of the Parliament’s decision of
18 November 1999 amending its Rules of Procedure pursuant
to the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 concern-
ing internal investigations conducted by the European Anti-
Fraud Office, alternatively for interim relief — the President of
the Court of First Instance made an order on 2 May 2000, the
operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                         Action brought on 21 April 2000 by Miguel Angel
                                                                         Martı́n de Pablos against Commission of the European
1. Operation of Articles 1 and 2 of the Parliament’s decision                                       Communities
    concerning the conditions and procedure for internal investi-
    gations is suspended in so far as those articles require the
    applicants to cooperate with the European Anti-Fraud Office and                               (Case T-101/00)
    to provide information to the President of the Parliament or to
    the Anti-Fraud Office.                                                                       (2000/C 211/45)
2. The Parliament is to inform the applicants without delay of any                         (Language of the case: Spanish)
    measure imminently to be taken against them by the European
    Anti-Fraud Office and to refrain from granting agents of the
    Anti-Fraud Office access to the applicants’ offices unless the       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    latter consent thereto, pending delivery by the Court of First       ties was brought before the Court of First Instance on 21 April
    Instance of final judgment in the main proceedings.                  2000 by Miguel Angel Martı́n de Pablos, residing in Madrid,
                                                                         represented by Javier Moreno Núñez.
3. The costs are reserved.                                               The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:
                                                                         — Annul the decision of the Selection Board denying Miguel
                                                                              Angel Martı́n de Pablos admission to the oral tests and,
                                                                              accordingly, require the Commission to admit him to those
                                                                              tests;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration case brought by the European Information Technology Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group (Case C-402/96)

text:
No C 74/ 10             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     8 . 3 . 97
                    ORDER OF THE COURT                                          relevant to the subject-matter under examination, the
                        ( Fourth Chamber)                                       case where an importer acting in good faith and with
                                                                                the authorization of the customs authority took
                      of 28 November 1996
                                                                                delivery of and placed into circulation products
in Case C-2 77/95 P: Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz v.                              imported from a non-member State, without paying
          Commission of the European Communities (')                            the countervailing charge imposed by Commission
                                                                                Regulation ( EEC ) No 1591/92 ( 3 ), where that omission
(Officials — Time-limit for the bringing of an action for                       is attributable to the fact that the competent customs
damages by the spouse or child of an official — Principle                       authority was not aware of the existence of that
           of res judicata — Manifest inadmissibility)                          Regulation owing either to the lack of any machinery
                             ( 97/C 74/ 17 )                                    for punctual communication to it of the applicability
                                                                                of a Community rule having direct application or to a
                 (Language of the case: German)                                 failure of coordination between the Community and
                                                                                national bodies involved, or to any other reason
                                                                                unconnected with any action taken by the importer, or
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                does the adoption of the Regulation afford sufficient
           published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                warrant on its own for the post-clearance imposition
                                                                                of the countervailing charge ?
In Case C-277/95 P: an appeal against the order of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                        2.   Are the time-limits laid down in Articles 3 and 5
( Fourth Chamber) of 14 June 1995 in Cases T-462/93 ,
T-464/93       and   T-470/93       Lenz     v.  Commission,     not
                                                                                of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1854/85 (4 ) for
                                                                                determining customs duty preclusive in the sense that
published in the European Court Reports, seeking to have
that order set aside, the other party to the proceedings                        the expiry thereof with action not having been taken
                                                                                nullifies the right of the customs authorities to
being: Commission of the European Communities ( Agent:
Julian Curall, assisted by Bertrand Wagenbaur, of the                           determine and collect the countervailing charge ?
                                                                                Furthermore, in the absence of exceptional
Hamburg Bar ), — the Court ( Fourth Chamber ), composed
                                                                                circumstances or a situation of force majeure, can the
of: J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,
                                                                                lapse of time amounting to upwards of five months
C. N. Kakouris and P. J. G. Kapteyn, Judges; A. La
                                                                                from the time when the customs authority became
Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given
                                                                                aware of the situation and was in a position to
a judgment on 28 November 1996 in which it:
                                                                                calculate the amount due be regarded as exceeding a
                                                                                reasonable period within which it ought to have
1 . dismisses the appeal;                                                       acted ?
2 . orders Erika Lenz and Volker Lenz to pay the costs.                    3 . Does the imposition of the countervailing charge in
                                                                                issue concern solely fresh dessert cherries or also
(>) OJ No C 268 , 14 . 10 . 1995 .                                              cherries intended for industrial processing ?
                                                                           (') OJ  No  L 175 , 12 . 7. 1979 , p. 1 .
                                                                           (2) OJ  No  L 197,  3 . 8 . 1979, p . 1 .
                                                                           (3) OJ  No  L 168 , 23 . 6 . 1992 , p . 18 .
                                                                           (4) OJ  No  L 186 , 30 . 6 . 1989, p . 1 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Diikitiko Efetio,
Salonika (Third section ) by judgment of that court of
24 October 1996 in the case of Covita AVE against the
                              Greek State
                          ( Case C-3 70/96 )
                                                                           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the
                             ( 97/C 74/18 )                                Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main by order of that
                                                                           court of 9 December 1996 in the commercial registration
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     case brought by the European Information Technology
European Communities by judgment of the Diikitiko                               Observatory, a European Economic Interest Group
Efetio (Administrative Court of Appeal ), Salonika (Third                                              ( Case C-402/96 )
section ) of 24 October 1996, received at the Court
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/ 19 )
Registry on 25 November 1996, for a preliminary ruling
in the case of Covita AVE against the Greek State on the
following questions :                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of
                                                                           the European Communities by an order of the
1 . May the terms ' special circumstances' and 'error made                 Oberlandesgericht ( Higher Regional Court ) Frankfurt am
     by the competent authorities' used in Article 13 of                   Main of 9 December 1996 , which was received at the
     Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1430/79 (') and Article 5               Court Registry on 23 December 1996 , for a preliminary
     ( 2 ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1697/79 (2 )                   ruling in the commercial registration case brought by the
    respectively be interpreted as including, each one                     European Information Technology Observatory, a
     separately or in conjunction both with each other and                 European Economic Interest Group on the following
    such other provisions or principles as may be                          question:
 ---pagebreak--- 8 . 3 . 97             EN 1                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 74/11
Is Article 5 ( a ) of Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2137/85            Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain
of 25 July 1985 on the European Economic Interest                      Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the
Grouping ( EEIG ) O to be interpreted as meaning that,                 judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of
apart from the additions of 'European Economic Interest                First Instance of the European Communities in Case
Grouping' or 'EEIG', the name or business name of an                   T-509/93     between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
EEIG may consist of a purely descriptive designation, even                      Commission of the European Communities
where internal law in principle precludes the use of such a                                     ( Case C-404/96 P)
name for the formation of a European Economic Interest
                                                                                97/C 74/21 )
Grouping ?
H OJ No L 199, 31 . 7 . 1985 , p . 1 .                                 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September
                                                                       1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                       Communities       in       Case      T-509/93  between   Richco
                                                                       Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European
                                                                       Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
                                                                       the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
                                                                       Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,
Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Glencore Grain                   represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.
Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd, against the                      Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for
judgment delivered on 24 September 1996 by the Court of                service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
First Instance of the European Communities in Case                      11 rue Goethe .
T-491 /93 between Richco Commodities Ltd and the
           Commission of the European Communities                      The appellant claims that the Court should:
                       ( Case C-403/96 P)
                                                                       — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First
                           ( 97/C 74/20 )                                   Instance in Case T-509/93 , in so far as that judgment
                                                                            declares inadmissible Glencore's application for
                                                                            annulment of the Commission Decision of 10 June
 An appeal against the judgment delivered on 24 September                   1993 addressed to the SEIB under reference SG ( 93 )
 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the European                        D/ 11703 ,
 Communities        in   Case     T-491 /93   between     Richco
 Commodities Ltd and the Commission of the European                     — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first
 Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of                     indent above, admissible,
 the European Communities on 23 December 1996 by
 Glencore Grain Ltd, formerly Richco Commodities Ltd,                   — order the Commission to pay all the costs, including
 represented by P. V. F. Bos, J. G. A. van Zuuren and M. M.                 those incurred in the proceedings before the Court of
 Slotboom, of the Rotterdam Bar, with an address for                        First Instance .
 service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch,
 11 rue Goethe .                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
 The appellant claims that the Court should :                           Case C-386/96 P (').
 — partially set aside the judgment of the Court of First               (') OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .
       Instance in Case T-491 /93 , in so far as that judgment
       declares inadmissible Glencore 's application for
       annulment of the decision or at least the act of the
       Commission of 1 April 1993 addressed to the
       Vnesheconombank under reference SG ( 93 ) D/5397,
                                                                        Appeal brought on 23 December 1996 by Sveriges
                                                                        Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
 — declare Glencore's application, referred to in the first             against the order made on 4 October 1996 by the First
       indent above, admissible,                                        Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                        Communities in Case T-l 97/95 between Sveriges
 — order the Commission to pay all the costs.                           Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake Henrikson
                                                                             and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                ( Case C-409/96 P)
  Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                                ( 97/C 74/22 )
  The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in
  Case C-386/96 P ( M.                                                   An appeal against the order made on 4 October 1996 by
                                                                         the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         European     Communities           in  Case T-l 97/95  between
  H OJ No C 40, 8 . 2 . 1997, p . 10 .                                   Sveriges Betodlares Centralforening and Mr Sven Ake
                                                                         Henrikson and the Commission of the European
                                                                         Communities, was brought before the Court of Justice of


title: Case F-15/05: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 24 June 2008 — Carlos Andres and Others v European Central Bank (Staff case — ECB staff — Remuneration — Consultation of the ECB staff committee — Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment — Enforcement of a judgment of a Community judicature — Retroactivity)

text:
               11.10.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/19

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Full Court) of 24 June 2008 — Carlos Andres and Others v European Central Bank
   (Case F-15/05) (1)

   (Staff case - ECB staff - Remuneration - Consultation of the ECB staff committee - Method of calculation of annual salary adjustment - Enforcement of a judgment of a Community judicature - Retroactivity)
   (2008/C 260/34)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicants: Carlos Andrés and Others (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: G. Vandersanden and L. Levi, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Zilioli and K. Sugar, Agents, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)
   Re:
   First, application for annulment of the applicants' salary slips for the month of July 2004, in so far as they contain an salary increase set in accordance with an allegedly unlawful method of annual salary adjustment and that increase does not have retroactive effect with regard to the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, and, secondly, an application for damages.
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 132, 28.5.2005, p. 32 (Case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-131/05 and transferred to the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union by order of 15.12.2005).


title: Case C-445/10: Action brought on 15 September 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/17

         Action brought on 15 September 2010 — European Commission v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-445/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/25
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: C. Egerer and A. Alcover San Pedro, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary fully to implement Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE), (1) or by failing fully to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period prescribed for implementation of the Directive expired on 14 May 2009.

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 108, p. 1.


title: Case T-78/11 P: Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by Erika Lenz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09 Lenz v Commission

text:
               2.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 103/25

         Appeal brought on 7 February 2011 by Erika Lenz against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09 Lenz v Commission
   (Case T-78/11 P)
   2011/C 103/44
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Erika Lenz (Osnabruck, Germany) (represented by V. Lenz and J. Römer. lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               Set aside in full the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 14 December 2010 in Case F-80/09;

               —

               Uphold in full the forms of order sought at first instance;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs of the appeal.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal the appellant relies on four pleas in law.
   1.   First plea in law: misrepresentation of the facts in paragraph 29 of the judgment appealed against and infringement of the Rules of Procedure
   The appellant criticises the Civil Service Tribunal for having described the ‘Reasoning’ of the Commission in the contested decision as such and for having accepted it, although it was not available in German and was therefore expressly not acknowledged by the appellant. The Civil Service Tribunal thereby infringed both Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure and Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English Special Edition, 1952-1958, p. 59). According to the appellant, paragraph 29 of the judgment appealed against contains not only a procedural error but also a misrepresentation of the facts.
   2.   Second plea in law: misrepresentation of the profession of natural health professional (‘Heilpraktiker’) in Germany
   It is claimed that the Civil Service Tribunal’s description of the medical therapeutic profession of natural health professional in Germany was factually incorrect.
   3.   Third plea in law: misrepresentation of the facts concerning the summoning of a witness
   The appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal misrepresented the facts with regard to the summoning of a witness. The Civil Service Tribunal, in paragraphs 20 and 45 of the judgment appealed against, incorrectly stated that what was at issue in the written submissions was the reimbursement of the costs of the witness concerned. According to the appellant what was at issue was in fact the proof of events during the period when the witness was employed by the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme of the institutions of the European Union.
   4.   Fourth plea in law: facts missing from the judgment
   The appellant also complains that certain statements by the parties in the oral hearing were not restated by the Civil Service Tribunal in the judgment appealed against and therefore also could not be assessed.


title: Case C-573/10: Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău v Lilia Druțu (Article 104(3), first indent of the Rules of Procedure — Internal taxation — Article 110 TFEU — Introduction of a pollution tax on first registration of motor vehicles)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/15

         Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 13 July 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Curtea de Apel Bacău — Romania) — Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău v Lilia Druțu
   (Case C-573/10) (1)

   (Article 104(3), first indent of the Rules of Procedure - Internal taxation - Article 110 TFEU - Introduction of a pollution tax on first registration of motor vehicles)
   2011/C 311/23
   Language of the case: Romanian

      Referring court

   Curtea de Apel Bacău

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Direcția Generală a Finanțelor Publice Bacău, Administrația Finanțelor Publice Bacău

      Defendant: Lilia Druțu

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Curtea de Appel Bacău Comercială, Contencios Administrativ și Fiscal — Registration of second-hand vehicles previously registered in other Member States — Environmental tax on motor vehicles on first registration in a Member State — Compatibility of national legislation with Article 110 TFEU — Discrimination compared with second-hand vehicles already registered in that Member State and not subject to that tax on subsequent sale and new registration

      Operative part of the order

   Article 110 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that it precludes a Member State from introducing a pollution tax on motor vehicles on first registration in that Member State if that fiscal measure is set up in such a way as to discourage the placing on the market in that Member State of second-hand vehicles purchased in other Member States without discouraging the purchase of second-hand vehicles of a similar age and condition on the national market.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 12.2.2011.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Case C-113/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundessozialgericht): Manuela Gómez Rodríguez and Gregorio Gómez Rodríguez v Landesversicherungsanstalt Rheinprovinz (Social security for migrant workers - Orphans' benefits)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 234/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                        COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which
                                                                      it has ruled:
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                        of 7 May 1998
                                                                      1. On a proper construction of Article 78(2)(b) of
in Case C-113/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of
the Bundessozialgericht): Manuela Gómez Rodríguez and                     14 June 1971 on the application of social security
Gregorio Gómez Rodríguez v Landesversicherungsanstalt                     schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
                       Rheinprovinz (1)                                   persons and to members of their families moving
                                                                          within the Community, as amended and updated by
 (Social security for migrant workers Ð Orphans' benefits)
                                                                          Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of 2 June
                        (98/C 234/01)                                     1983, Article 78(2)(b)(ii) does not become applicable
                                                                          in circumstances where a right to orphans' pension,
                                                                          which initially arose under Article 78(2)(b)(i) in the
               (Language of the case: German)                             Member State in which the recipient resides, has been
                                                                          lost by reason of the attainment of an age-limit, while
                                                                          in another Member State, whose legislation was also
                                                                          applicable to the insured person, a right to orphans'
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            pension would run beyond that date on application of
          published in the European Court Reports)                        the rule on aggregation laid down in Article 79 of the
                                                                          regulation.
In Case C-113/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Bundessozialgericht, Germany,               2. Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty preclude the loss
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before                of social security advantages for workers which would
that court between Manuela Gómez Rodríguez and                            result from the inapplicability, following the entry into
Gregorio Gómez Rodríguez and Landesversicherungsan-                       force of Regulation No 1408/71, of a bilateral social
stalt Rheinprovinz, on the interpretation of Articles 6 and               security convention. However, that principle cannot
78 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of                       apply in so far as, when the benefits are set under the
14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes                regulation for the first time, a comparison has already
to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to                      been made of the advantages resulting from the
members of their families moving within the Community,                    regulation and the convention, respectively, whose
as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)                        outcome was that it was more advantageous to apply
No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983 (OJ L 230 of 22.8.1983, p. 6),                  the regulation than the convention.
and of Articles 48 and 51 of the EC Treaty, the Court
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, (Rapporteur),               (1) OJ C 158 of 1.6.1996.
President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and P. Jann, Judges;
G. Cosmas, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy


title: Case T-119/08: Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/59

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2008 — Cyprus v Commission
   (Case T-119/08) (1)

   (2008/C 223/110)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 142, 7.6.2008.