title: References for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by orders of that court of 9 July 1996 in the cases of Helmut Kampelmann v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-253/96), Wilfried Tilsch v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-254/96), Dieter Klingelhöfer v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-255/96), Heinrich Schmidt v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe (C-256/96), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade (C-257/96) and Klaus Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH (C-258/96) (Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96)

text:
No C 294/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        5 . 10 . 96
    essentially the same employees continue to perform the              Are Presidential Decree No 915 of 10 September 1982 ( )
    same surveillance duties on essentially the same terms ,            and current Italian legislation in general relating to waste
    which are determined to a large extent by the body                  and secondary raw materials compatible with Directive
    awarding the contract ?                                             91 / 156/EEC of 18 March 1991 ( 2 )?
(') OJ No L 61 , 5 . 3 . 1977, p . 26 .                                 (') Erroneously given as 1992 in the order for reference .
                                                                        ( 2 ) OJ No L 78 , 1991 , p. 32 .
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Civile
e Penale, Brescia, by order of that court of 12 April 1996, in          References for a preliminary ruling from the
                                                                        Landesarbeitsgericht Hamm by orders of that court of 9 July
the criminal proceedings pending before it against Riccardo
                                Piccaluga                               1996 in the cases of Helmut Kampelmann v.
                                                                        Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-253/96 ), Wilfried
                         ( Case C-250/96                                Tilsch v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe ( C-254/96 ),
                            ( 96/C 294/05 )                             Dieter Klingelhöfer v. Landschaftsverband Westfalen-Lippe
                                                                        ( C-255/96 ), Heinrich Schmidt v. Landschaftsverband
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                  Westfalen-Lippe ( C-256/96 ), Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v.
European Communities by an order of the Tribunale Civile                Andreas Schade ( C-257/96 ) and Klaus Haseley v.
e Penale ( Civil and Criminal District Court), Brescia , of                            Stadtwerke Altena GmbH ( C-258/96 )
12 April 1996 , which was received at the Court Registry on                               ( Cases C-253/96 to C-258/96 )
22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                                ( 96/C 294/07
proceedings pending before it against Riccardo Piccaluga on
the following questions :
                                                                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                        European Communities by orders of the Fourth Chamber of
1 . May the provisions of Italian law concerning                        the Landesarbeitsgericht ( Higher Labour Court ) Hamm of
    employment procurement and temporary work be                        9 July 1996 , which were received at the Court Registry on
    regarded as covered by the exercise of official authority           23 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the cases of Helmut
    within the meaning of Article 66 in conjunction with                Kampelmann , Wilfried Tilsch , Dieter Klingelhöfer and
    Article 55 of the Treaty, in the light of their public-law
                                                                        Heinrich Schmidt v. Landesverband Westfalen-Lippe,
    character, inasmuch as they are intended to protect                 Stadtwerke Witten GmbH v. Andreas Schade and Klaus
    workers and the national economy ?
                                                                        Haseley v. Stadtwerke Altena GmbH for a preliminary
                                                                        ruling on the following questions :
2 . In the absence of specific implementing provisions , may
    the aforesaid provisions be regarded as directly                     1 . In view of the objective , stated in the preamble to
     applicable ( thereby undermining the public-law                           Council Directive 91 /533/EEC on an employer's
     objectives pursued by the Italian laws in force relating to              obligation to inform employees of the conditions
     employment procurement and temporary work ) and do                        applicable to the contract or employment
     they permit any person , whether public or private, to act               relationship ( J ), of 'providing employees with improved
     as an intermediary between persons seeking and persons                   protection against possible infringements of their rights
     offering employment and/or temporary work, without                        and to create greater transparency on the labour
     any specific control or authorization , where the                         market', is it the purpose of Article 2 of the said
     Member State is unable to satisfy fully the demand for                    Directive to modify ( in the employee 's favour ) the
     services on the labour market using its own                               burden of proof in that the list of minimum
     administrative machinery ?                                                requirements in Article 2 ( 2 ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC is
                                                                               intended to ensure that the employee does not encounter
                                                                               difficulties of proof regarding the listed points when
                                                                               enforcing his contractual rights in employment-law
                                                                               disputes ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale, Rovigo ( Sezione Distaccata de Adria ), by                2 . If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative : has
 order of that court of 13 July 1993 in criminal proceedings                   Article 2 ( 2 ) (c ) ( ii ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC been
                   against Giuseppe Cordelia                                   directly applicable since 1 July 1993 against the State
                          ( Case C-251 /96 )                                   acting as an employer in private law because :
                             ( 96/C 294/06 )                                   — the Federal Republic of Germany did not
                                                                                ( completely ) implement Directive 91 /533/EEC by
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                            30 June 1993 , the expiry date of the period for
 European Communities by order of the Pretura                                      implementation ,
 Circondariale ( District Magistrate 's Court ), Rovigo ( Adria
 Division ), of 13 July 1 993 , which was received at the Court                — the abovementioned provision of the Directive is
 Registry on 22 July 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in                            unconditional and can therefore be incorporated in
 criminal proceedings pending before it against Giuseppe                           national law without any further implementing
 Cordelia on the following question :                                               act ,
 ---pagebreak--- 5 . 10 . 96             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 294/5
     — the Directive confers upon the individual employee                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Corte d'Appello
         rights against the State acting as employer ?                   ( Sezione Prima Civile ), Venice, by order of that court of
                                                                         1 8 April 1996 in the case of Ministero delle Finanze v. SPAC
3 . If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative : must the                                           SpA
     information which the employer is required to give                                           ( Case C-260/96 )
     under Article 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( ii ) of Directive 91 /533/EEC                                    ( 96/C 294/08 )
     concerning the ' nature or category of the work ' be
     understood as meaning the classification of a job in the
     sense that, if the employee 's grading according to the             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     salary scheme under a collective agreement requires                 European Communities by order of the Corte d'Appello
     fulfilment of the work specifications of a particular case          ( Sezione Prima Civile ) ( Court of Appeal , First Civil
     of a salary grade, he must be able to see , from the                Division ), Venice, of 18 April 1996 , which was received at
     notification of his grading in a particular salary grade            the Court Registry on 24 July 1 996 , for a preliminary ruling
     and case , whether he is entitled to                                in the case of Ministero delle Finanze v. SPAC SpA on the
                                                                         following question :
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period of
         satisfactory service or advancement by case in salary
         grades ( C-253/96 ),                                            In proceedings before an Italian court for reimbursement of
                                                                         charges paid pursuant to provisions of national law which,
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period                   in view of the interpretation given by the Court of Justice in
         of satisfactory service ( C-254/96 , C-255/96 ,                 Joined Cases C-71 /91 and C-178/91 Ponente Carni and
         C-2 56/96 ),                                                    Another v. Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato,
                                                                         conflict with Article 10 of Council Directive 69/335/EEC of
     — advancement on the basis of a continuous period of                17 July 1969 ( 1 ), is a provision of national law which , by
         satisfactory service and/or advancement by case                 removing such actions from the scope of the ordinary rules
          ( C-257/96 , C-258/96 )?                                       governing actions for the recovery of charges unduly paid,
                                                                         and making them subject to special rules governing the
                                                                         reimbursement of charges paid in error, requires that the
4 . If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative : does the         right of action be exercised within a limitation period
     notification pursuant to Article 2 ( 2 ) ( c ) ( ii ) of Directive  running from the time when payment was made rather than
     91 /533/EEC bind the employer in the sense that he is               from the time when the relevant Community Directive was
     bound by the classification of the job notified to the              correctly transposed into national law, compatible with the
     employee until such time as he ( the employer ) proves              principles laid down in that Directive and adopted in its
     that the grading was incorrect, or at least until he shows          interpretation , and the general principles of Community law
     conclusively ( perhaps in the form of a job'assessment )            upheld by the Court of Justice in Case C-208/91 ?
     that he graded the employee mistakenly or that the
     classification of the work has been lowered in the course
     of     time    or  by   amendment        to    the       collective (') OJ, English Special Edition 1969 ( II ), p. 412 .
     agreement ?
5 . If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative : is the
     implementation in German law of Article 9 ( 2 ) of
     Directive 91 /533/EEC by the Information Act of 20 July
     1995 ( Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 946 ), to the effect that the
     employer has no obligation to give the employee written             Appeal brought on 7 August 1996 by 1 . the Stichting
     notification in the case of an employment relationship in           Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the Federatie van
     existence when the Act comes into force , ' if and so far as        Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven against the order
     an     earlier   document    or    a   written       contract    of
                                                                         made on 4 June 1996 by the Court of First Instance of the
     employment gives the particulars required '                         European Communities in Case T-18/96 R between 1 . the
     ( paragraph 4 , sentence 2 , of the Information Act ), to be        Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the
     regarded as in conformity with Community law, with                  Federatie van Nederlandse Kraanverhuurbedrijven, and the
     the consequence that such earlier notifications which                         Commission of the European Communities
     satisfy the requirements of Directive 91 /533/EEC ,
     whether it has been implemented or whether, in the                                       ( Case C-268/96 P ( R ))
     absence of implementation , it is directly applicable ,                                         ( 96/C 294/09 )
     continue to be valid , with the consequence that, if the
     employer gives a more recent written notification ( in the
     present case , in the course of proceedings ) which                 An appeal against the order made on 4 June 1996 by the
     conflicts with the earlier one, he must prove that the              Court of First Instance of the European Communities in
     later notification is correct ?                                     Case T-18/96 R between 1 . the Stichting Certificatie
                                                                         Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the Federatie van Nederlandse
                                                                         Kraanverhuurbedrijven, and the Commission of the
(') OJ No L 288 , 18 . 10 . 1991 , p . 32 .
                                                                         European Communities, was brought before the Court of
                                                                         Justice of the European Communities on 7 August 19 96 by
                                                                          1 . the Stichting Certificatie Kraanverhuurbedrijf and 2 . the


title: Case T-82/04: Action brought on 25 February 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/43

         Action brought on 25 February 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi against the Commission of the European Communities
   (Case T-82/04)
   (2004/C 118/94)
   Language of the case: French
   An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 February 2004 by Jamal Ouariachi, residing in Rabat (Morocco), represented by France Blanmailland, lawyer.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               order the defendant to pay a lump sum of EUR 150 000 to the applicant as compensation for the non-material damage which he has sustained;

               —

               order the defendant to pay all the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The applicant, who has both Moroccan and Spanish nationality and resides in Morocco, has been divorced since 2000 and has visiting rights in respect of his two children, who are in their mother's custody. In 2002, the mother took the children to Sudan where, according to the applicant, she was joining a Commission official then working at the European Union Delegation in Khartoum, Sudan.
   The applicant claims that, in order to be able to take the children away from their father and leave Moroccan territory to go to Sudan, his ex-wife had an invitation from the European Union Delegation in Khartoum, and that it is on the basis of that invitation that the Sudanese consulate issued a visa.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims that the official in question usurped the applicant's identity by signing the two children's school reports.


25 . 3 . 95         | EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                             No C 74/17
Pleas in law and main arguments                                              Removal from the register of Case T-248/94 ( 1 )
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/35 )
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
Case T-20/94 .                                                                       (Language of the case: German)
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
                                                                      Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-248/94 : Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
                                                                      Communities .
Action brought on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian
Jacobsen against Council of the European Union and                    (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
         Commission of the European Communities
                         ( Case T-24/95 )
                           ( 95/C 74/33 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-249/94 ( )
               (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                ( 95/C 74/36 )
An action against the Council of the European Union and                               (Language of the case: Dutch)
Commission of the European Communities was brought
before the Court of First Instance of the European                    By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Communities on 13 February 1995 by Hans-Christian                     Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Jacobsen, Jarplund-Weding ( Federal Republic of Germany),             Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
represented by Dr. Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,                 T-249/94: Hema B.V. v. Commission of the European
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers             Communities .
of Dupong & Associes, 14a Rue des Bains.
                                                                      f 1 ) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— order the defendants to pay compensation to the
     applicant for the period of five milk years from 1 April
     1988 in the amount of DM 24 540, together with                          Removal from the register of Case T-250/94 ( )
     interest of 8% from 17 December 1983 .                                                       ( 95/C 74/37 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                      By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in           Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
Case T-20/94 .
                                                                      Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
                                                                      T-250/94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .
       Removal from the register of Case T-l 24/93 ( )
                            ( 95/C 74/34 )
                                                                             Removal from the register of Case T-251/94 ( x )
               (Language of the case: German)                                                     ( 95/C 74/38 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
By order of 20 January 1995 the President of the First
Chamber (extended composition) of the Court of First                  By order of 6 February 1995 the President of the Third
Instance of the European Communities ordered the removal              Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European
from the register of Case T-l 24/9 3 : Georg Werner v.                Communities ordered the removal from the register of Case
Commission of the European Communities .                              T-251 /94 : M & S Mode Nederland B.V. v. Commission of
                                                                      the European Communities.
 (M OJ No C 34, 9 . 2 . 1991 .
                                                                      (!) OJ No C 288 , 15 . 10 . 1994 .


title: Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-75/98)

text:
C 234/30             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    25.7.98
Ð order the Commission to pay all the costs.                       with Italian legislation, and were approved by it on 7 July
                                                                   1994. In the meantime, the abovementioned doctor
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                brought an action before the courts in Italy against the
                                                                   applicant seeking an order enjoining him to pay said fees
                                                                   and expenses.
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 25 and 71 of
the Staff Regulations and of Annex VII thereof, in
particular Articles 14b and 15, and breach of the principle        In support of his application the applicant claims that the
of equality and of the principle that all administrative           following have been breached:
decisions must be based on a lawful and relevant
statement of reasons; he maintains that no valid statement         Ð the first paragraph of Article 8 of Annex II to the Staff
of reasons was given for the contested decision.                       Regulations;
                                                                   Ð the first paragraph of Article 23(2) of the Rules on the
                                                                       Insurance of Officials of the European Communities
                                                                       against the Risk of Accident and of Occupational
                                                                       Disease;
Action brought on 5 May 1998 by Arnaldo Lucaccioni
  against the Commission of the European Communities               Ð the duty of care incumbent on the Commission;
                       (Case T-75/98)
                        (98/C 234/59)                              Ð the duty to have regard to the welfare of officials and
                                                                       to observe reasonable periods' under the Declaration
                                                                       of Human Rights, in view of the fact that the two
               (Language of the case: Italian)                         Committees took years to complete reach their
                                                                       findings.
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 5 May 1998 by
Arnaldo Lucaccioni, represented by Mauro Cimino, of the
Fermo Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Jean Tonnar, 29 Rue du FosseÂ, Esch-sur-
                                                                   Action brought on 13 May 1998 by Claudine Hamptaux
Alzette.
                                                                     against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-76/98)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (98/C 234/60)
1. order the defendant to pay the costs of the
    proceedings, that is LIT 35 950 million, together with                        (Language of the case: French)
    the interest and legal costs accrued, as well as to
    refund the costs incurred by Dr Cognigni as a result of        An action against the Commission of the European
    participating in the Medical Committee;                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 13 May 1998
2. order the defendant to make good non-material                   by Claudine Hamptaux, residing at WoluweÂ-St-Lambert
    damage caused in the amount of six times the amount            (Belgium), represented by Lucas Vogel, of the Brussels Bar,
    mentioned in paragraph 1 above, including interest             with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
    and other costs;                                               Chambers of Christian Kremer, 6 Rue Heinrich Heine.
3. order the defendant to pay the costs.                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                Ð annul the decision, adopted on 30 January 1998 (and
                                                                       notified on 11 February 1998), expressly rejecting the
                                                                       complaint made by the applicant to the appointing
The present action seeks to obtain payment of a principal              authority on 9 October 1997 by which she contested
sum and interest thereon by way of fees and related                    the following two decisions:
expenses for the doctor appointed by the applicant to the
Invalidity Committee and to the Medical Committee in                   Ð the decision (notified to the applicant on 9 July
the procedures for assessing invalidity and recognizing                    1997 and published in Administrative Notices
occupational diseases respectively.                                        No 998 of 8 August 1997) not to include the
                                                                           applicant in the list of officials most deserving of
The applicant states in this regard that upon the                          promotion to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions
conclusion of the Invalidity Committee and the Medical                     procedure;
Committee, the doctor appointed by him applied in vain
to the administration for the fees for his services. The fees          Ð the decision (published in Administrative Notices
and expenses in question were submitted to the Consiglio                   No 999 of 12 August 1997) listing the officials
dell'Ordine dei Medici (Medical Council) in accordance                     promoted to grade B 2 in the 1997 promotions


23.1.1999             EN              Official Journal of the European Communities                                C 20/29
      Removal from the register of Case C-296/97 (1)                   Removal from the register of Case C-377/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/48)                                                   (1999/C 20/51)
By order of 7 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          By order of 9 October 1998, the President of the Court of
from the register of Case C-296/97 (Reference for a              Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
preliminary ruling from the Oberverwaltungsgericht für           from the register of Case C-377/97: Commission of the
das Land Nordrhein-Westfalen): Ulrich Gloger v. Bergamt          European Communities v. Greek Republic.
Kamen, intervener: Vertreter des Öffentlichen Interesses
beim Oberverwaltungsgericht für das Land Nordrhein-              (1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
Westfalen (Representative of the Public Interest before the
Higher Administrative Court for the Land North
Rhine-Westphalia).
(1) OJ C 318, 18.10.1997.
                                                                 Removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
                                                                                C-240/96 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/52)
      Removal from the register of Case C-369/97 ( )1
                       (1999/C 20/49)                            By order of 14 October 1998, the President of the Court
                                                                 of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of        removal from the register of Joined Cases C-239/96 and
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal          C-240/96: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
from the register of Case C-369/97 (Reference for a              Ireland, interveners: Federal Republic of Germany,
preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof): Schutz-       Kingdom of Denmark and Council of the European Union
verband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb v. F. W. Woolworth           v. Commission of the European Communities, intervener:
Co Gesellschaft mbH.                                             European Parliament.
(1) OJ C 370, 6.12.1997.                                         (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
      Removal from the register of Case C-382/97 (1)
                       (1999/C 20/50)                                  Removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (1)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/53)
By order of 8 October 1998, the President of the Court of
Justice of the European Communities ordered the removal
from the register of Case C-382/97 (Reference for a              By order of 20 October 1998, the President of the Court
preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof):             of Justice of the European Communities ordered the
Gerhard Köbler v. Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, For-          removal from the register of Case C-370/97 (Reference for
schung und Kunst.                                                a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof):
                                                                 Poloco SA v. Jürgen Denz.
(1) OJ C 7, 10.1.1998.
                                                                 (1) OJ C 387, 20.12.1997.


title: Case C-339/06: Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directive 2004/116/EC — Annex to Directive 92/471/EEC — Animal feed — Candida guilliermondii — Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

text:
               4.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/15

         Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 21 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic
   (Case C-339/06) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 2004/116/EC - Annex to Directive 92/471/EEC - Animal feed - Candida guilliermondii - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)
   (2007/C 183/24)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Cattabriga, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Italian Republic (represented by: I. Braguglia and S. Fiorentino, Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii (OJ 2004 L 379, p. 81)
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

                  Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the period prescribed, the laws, regulation and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Commission Directive 2004/116/EC of 23 December 2004 amending the Annex to Council Directive 82/471/EEC as regards the inclusion of Candida guilliermondii, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 224, 16.9.2006.


title: Case C-209/13: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2014  — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union (Common system of financial transaction tax — Authorisation of enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU — Decision 2013/52/EU — Action for annulment in respect of infringement of Articles 327 TFEU and 332 TFEU and of customary international law)

text:
               24.6.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/6

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 30 April 2014 — United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-209/13) (1)

   ((Common system of financial transaction tax - Authorisation of enhanced cooperation under Article 329(1) TFEU - Decision 2013/52/EU - Action for annulment in respect of infringement of Articles 327 TFEU and 332 TFEU and of customary international law))
   2014/C 194/06
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented by: E. Jenkinson and S. Behzadi Spencer, acting as Agents, and by M. Hoskins QC, P. Baker QC and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.-M. Colaert, F. Florindo Gijón and A. de Gregorio Merino, acting as Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: J.-C. Halleux and M. Jacobs, acting as Agents), Federal Republic of Germany (represented by: T. Henze, J. Möller and K. Petersen, acting as Agents), French Republic (represented by: D. Colas and J.-S. Pilczer, acting as Agents), Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent), Portuguese Republic (represented by L. Inez Fernandes, J. Menezes Leitão and A. Cunha, acting as Agents), European Parliament (represented by: A. Neergaard and R. van de Westelaken, acting as Agents), European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal, B. Smulders and W. Mölls, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for annulment — Annulment of Council Decision 2013/52/EU of 22 January 2013 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax (OJ 2013 L 22, p. 11) — Infringement of Articles 327 TFEU and 332 TFEU

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to pay the costs.

               3.

               Orders the Kingdom of Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, the French Republic, the Republic of Austria, the Portuguese Republic, the European Parliament and the European Commission to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 171, 15.6.2013.


title: Case T-344/13: Action brought on 28 June 2013 — Out of the blue/OHIM — Dubois et al. (FUNNY BANDS)

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/43

         Action brought on 28 June 2013 — Out of the blue/OHIM — Dubois et al. (FUNNY BANDS)
   (Case T-344/13)
   2013/C 260/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Out of the blue KG (Lilienthal, Germany) (represented by: G. Hasselblatt and D. Kipping, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frédéric Dubois et al. (Lasne, Belgium)

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               Overturn the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 April 2013, Case R 542/2012-2;

               —

               Order OHIM to bear its own costs as well as the costs of the applicant;

               —

               In the event that Mr. DUBOIS joins in these proceedings as an intervening party, order the intervening party to bear its own costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark containing the word element ‘FUNNY BANDS’ for goods and services in classes 14, 17 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 350 794

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German non-registered sign ‘FUNNY BANDS’ several goods and services and activities

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sø- og Handelsretten, Copenhagen, by order of that court of 3 December 1997 in the cases of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland A/S, Dansk Supermarked Administration A/S, HBN Marketing ApS, Progress, in the person of Peter Jensen, and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S (Case C-4/98)

text:
C 72/10              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                    7.3.98
is not open to the Member State in which he is                          If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, the
temporarily working to regard work carried out on its                   following further questions are raised:
territory as salaried employment, or must those provisions
be interpreted as meaning that it is open to the latter State
to regard that temporary work as salaried employment in
order to bring the person concerned on that ground within           3. Does the determination whether the legislation of non-
its legislation on employed persons?                                    member country or countries in question offers the
                                                                        guarantee of reciprocity referred to in Question 2 fall
                                                                        within the scope of Article 177 of the Treaty
                                                                        establishing the European Community so that a court
                                                                        in a Member State is entitled or even, according to the
                                                                        circumstances, bound to refer a question to the Court
                                                                        of Justice?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by Sù- og                            If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, the
Handelsretten, Copenhagen, by order of that court of                    following further questions are raised:
3 December 1997 in the cases of Calvin Klein Trademark
Trust v. Cowboyland A/S, Dansk Supermarked
Administration A/S, HBN Marketing ApS, Progress, in the
    person of Peter Jensen, and Bilka Lavprisvarehus A/S            4. Should the trade mark legislation in the United States
                                                                        of America be regarded as offering the guarantee of
                        (Case C-4/98)                                   reciprocity referred to in Question 2?
                         (98/C 72/17)
                                                                        Lastly, if the answer to Question 1 is in the negative
                                                                        and/or Question 2 is answered in the affirmative, the
                                                                        following final question is raised:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of Sù- og
Handelsretten (Maritime and Commercial Court) of
3 December 1997, which was received at the Court                    5. Should the term legitimate reasons' in Article 7(2) of
Registry on 12 January 1998, for a preliminary ruling in                the said Directive be understood as meaning that the
the cases of Calvin Klein Trademark Trust v. Cowboyland                 proprietor of a trade mark may oppose use of the
A/S and Others, on the following questions:                             mark in a Member State on goods which have been
                                                                        marketed in a non-member country by the proprietor,
                                                                        or with his consent, when those goods are different in
                                                                        design, fit, colour, labelling information, handling of
                                                                        the material used, sewing and similar ways from
1. Does Article 7(1) of the First Council Directive of                  equivalent goods marketed by the proprietor of the
     21 December 1988 to approximate the laws of the                    mark, or with his consent, in the Member State in
     Member States relating to trade marks (89/104/                     question or in other Member States?
     EEC) (1) preclude the individual Member States from
     maintaining, introducing or reintroducing a general
     rule in their national trade mark legislation to the           (1) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 1.
     effect that the proprietor of a trade mark may not
     prevent the use of the trade mark in that Member
     State for goods which have been put on the market
     under that mark by the proprietor of the mark
     himself, or with his consent, in a non-member country,
     in other words outside the Community area?
                                                                    Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                    Grande Instance, AngouleÃme (First Civil Chamber) by
                                                                    judgment of that court of 8 January 1998 in the case of
2. Are the courts in a Member State entitled to preclude
                                                                    SA Otor Godard v. Directeur des Services Fiscaux de la
     the proprietor of a trade mark from preventing the use
                                                                                Charente
     in the Member State of the mark for goods which
     have been put on the market under that mark by the                                      (Case C-5/98)
     proprietor of the mark himself, or with his consent, in
     a non-member country whose trade mark legislation                                        (98/C 72/18)
     guarantees that the proprietor of the mark is precluded
     from preventing the use of a mark in the non-member
     country in question for goods which have been put on
     the market for the first time by the proprietor of the         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     mark himself, or with his consent, in a Member State?          European Communities by a judgment of the First Civil


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 12 February 1998 in Case C-346/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München): Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt München I (Sixth VAT Directive - Exemption - Letting of immovable property - Exclusion of accommodation in the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function)

text:
C 113/2               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.4.98
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                 Advocate-General and R. Grass, Registrar,              gave a
                     of 10 February 1998                            judgment on 10 February 1998, in which it:
in Case C-245/95 P: Commission of the European                      1. Dismisses the appeal.
Communities v. NTN Corporation and Koyo Seiko Co.
         Ltd, supported by NSK Ltd and Others (1)
                                                                    2. Orders the Commission to pay the costs of this
(Appeal Ð Dumping Ð Ball-bearings originating in                         appeal.
                            Japan)
                        (98/C 113/05)                               (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995.
               (Language of the case: English)
In Case C-245/95 P, Commission of the European
Communities (Agents: Eric White and Nicholas Khan)                                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance                                  (Fifth Chamber)
of the European Communities (Third Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 2 May 1995 NTN Corporation and                                           of 12 February 1998
Koyo Seiko v. Council (Cases T-163/94 and T-165/94,                 in Case C-346/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
ECR II-1381) seeking to have that judgment set aside, the           the Finanzgericht München): Elisabeth Blasi v. Finanzamt
other parties to the proceedings being: NTN Corporation,                                     München I (1)
a company incorporated under Japanese law, whose
registered office is in Osaka (Japan), represented by Jürgen        (Sixth VAT Directive Ð Exemption Ð Letting of
Schwarze and Malte Sprenger, Rechtsanwälte, Düsseldorf,             immovable property Ð Exclusion of accommodation in
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                        the hotel sector or in sectors with a similar function)
Chambers of Claude Penning, 78 Grand-rue; Koyo Seiko                                         (98/C 113/06)
Co. Ltd, a company incorporated under Japanese law,
whose registered office is in Osaka (Japan), represented by
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
Jacques Buhart, of the Paris Bar, and Charles Kaplan,
barrister, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Messrs Arendt and Medernach, 8Ð10 rue                     (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Mathias Hardt, supported by: NSK Ltd, a company                              published in the European Court Reports)
incorporated under Japanese law, whose registered office
is in Tokyo (Japan), and eight of its European subsidiaries,
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd, a company incorporated under               In Case C-346/95: reference to the Court pursuant to
English law, whose registered office is in London, NSK-             Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Finanzgericht
RHP France SA, a company incorporated under French                  München (Finance Court, Munich) Germany, for a
law, whose registered office is in Guyancourt (France),             preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
NSK-RHP UK Ltd, a company incorporated under English                court between Elisabeth Blasi and Finanzamt München I
law, whose registered office is in Ruddington (United               Ð on the interpretation of Article 13(B)(b)(1) of sixth
Kingdom), NSK-RHP Deutschland GmbH, a company                       Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
incorporated under German law, whose registered office is           harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating
in Ratingen (Germany), NSK-RHP Italia SpA, a company                to turnover taxes Ð Common system of value-added tax:
incorporated under Italian law, whose registered office is          uniform basis of assessment (2) Ð the Court (Fifth
in Milan (Italy), NSK-RHP Nederland BV, a company                   Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
incorporated under Netherlands law, whose registered                Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
office is in Amstelveen (The Netherlands), NSK-RHP                  Almeida, D. A. O. Edward and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges;
European Distribution Centre BV, a company                          F. G. Jacobs, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
incorporated under Netherlands law, whose registered                Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
office is in Amstelveen (The Netherlands), and NSK-RHP              judgment on 12 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
Iberica SA, a company incorporated under Spanish law,
whose registered office is in Barcelona (Spain), all                Article 13(B)(b)(1) of sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC
represented by David Vaughan QC, instructed by Robin                of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
Griffith, Solicitor, with an address for service in                 Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Marc Loesch, 8 rue                    system of value-added tax: uniform basis of assessment
Zithe; Council of the European Union (Agent: Antonio                may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-
Tanca)      and     Federation    of    European      Bearing       term accommodation for guests is taxable, as constituting
Manufacturers' Associations established in Frankfurt-on-            the provision of accommodation in sectors with a function
Main (Germany), the Court, composed of G. C.                        similar to that of the hotel sector. In that regard,
Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm             Article 13(B)(b)(1) does not preclude taxation in respect
(Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Presidents of Chambers,               of agreements concluded for a period of less than six
G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, P. J. G.                  months, if that duration is deemed to reflect the parties'
Kapteyn, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,           intention. It is, however, for the national court to
G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; P. LeÂger,                 determine whether, in a case before it, certain factors
 ---pagebreak--- 11.4.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 113/3
(such as the automatic renewal of the letting agreement)                            JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
suggest that the duration stated in the letting agreement
does not reflect the parties' true intention, in which case                                 (Fifth Chamber)
the actual total duration of the accommodation, rather                                    of 12 February 1998
than that specified in the letting agreement, would have to
be taken into consideration.                                         in Case C-366/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Tribunal du Travail, Charleroi): Louisette Cordelle v.
(1) OJ C 351, 30.12.1995.
                                                                                Office National des Pensions (ONP) (1)
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
                                                                     (Social security Ð Articles 12(2) and 46a of Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð National rules against overlapping
                                                                                Ð Benefits of the same kind)
                                                                                (98/C 113/08)
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                        (Fifth Chamber)
                     of 12 February 1998
in Case C-163/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
from the Pretura Circondariale, La Spezia): Criminal                           published in the European Court Reports)
      proceedings against Silvano Raso and Others (1)
(Freedom to provide services Ð Competition Ð Special or
exclusive rights Ð Undertakings holding a port terminal              In Case C-366/96: reference to the Court pursuant to
                           concession)                               Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal du Travail
                         (98/C 113/07)                               (Labour Court), Charleroi, Belgium, for a preliminary
                                                                     ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
                                                                     between Louisette Cordelle and Office National des
                                                                     Pensions (ONP) Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(2)
                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                     on the application of social-security schemes to employed
                                                                     persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     families moving within the Community (2), as amended
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                     and updated by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 of
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     2 June 1983 (3), and of Article 46a of Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation
                                                                     (EEC) No 2001/83 and subsequently amended by Council
In Case C-163/96: reference to the Court pursuant to                 Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 of 30 April 1992 (4) Ð the
Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Pretura                        Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: M. Wathelet,
Circondariale, La Spezia (Italy), for a preliminary ruling in        President of the First Chamber, acting as President of the
the criminal proceedings pending before that court against           Fifth Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O.
Silvano Raso and Others Ð on the interpretation of                   Edward (Rapporteur), P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; C. O.
Articles 59, 86 and 90(1) of the EC Treaty Ð the Court               Lenz, Advocate-General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of               Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho                12 February 1998, in which it has ruled:
de Almeida, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges; N. Fennelly,
Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 February 1998,
in which it has ruled:                                               Article 12(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of
                                                                     14 June 1971 on the application of social-security schemes
                                                                     to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
Articles 86 and 90 of the EC Treaty must be interpreted              members of their families moving within the Community,
as precluding a national provision which reserves to a               as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EEC)
dock-work company the right to supply temporary labour               No 2001/83 of 2 June 1983, does not preclude a Member
to other undertakings operating in the port in which it is           State from applying a rule against overlapping under
established, when that company is itself authorised to               which, when calculating a survivor's pension awarded
carry out dock work.                                                 under its own legislation on the basis of the deceased
                                                                     spouse's working life, account is to be taken of benefits to
                                                                     which the survivor is entitled in his or her own right in
(1) OJ C 197, 6.7.1996.                                              another Member State where those benefits are to be
                                                                     classified as retirement pensions or other equivalent
                                                                     benefits under the legislation of the first Member State. It
                                                                     is for the national court to decide on the classification, for


title: Case C-314/03: Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
6.9.2003               EN                       Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 213/23
The Commission of the European Communities claims that                  Pleas in law and main arguments
the Court should:
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations           The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with            1 January 2002.
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the        (1 ) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.
      French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
      that directive;
—     order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities against the Grand Duchy of
                                                                                Luxembourg
The time-limit for transposition of the Directive expired on
1 January 2002.
                                                                                (Case C-314/03)
( 1) OJ L 171, 7.7.1999, p. 12.                                                                  (2003/C 213/43)
                                                                        An action against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg was
                                                                        brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties on 23 July 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities, represented by G. Rozet, acting as Agent, with
Action brought on 23 July 2003 by the Commission                        an address for service in Luxembourg.
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of
                              Belgium
                                                                        The Commission of the European Communities claims that
                                                                        the Court should:
                         (Case C-312/03)
                                                                        —     declare that, by not adopting the laws, regulations
                         (2003/C 213/42)                                      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                              Commission Directive 2000/52/EC of 26 July 2000 on
                                                                              the transparency of financial relations between Member
                                                                              States and public undertakings and financial transparency
                                                                              in certain undertakings (1), and in any event by not
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought before                   notifying the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 23 July                   Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,                           directive;
represented by D. Martin, acting as Agent, with an address for
service in Luxembourg.                                                  —     order the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                        Pleas in law and main arguments
—     declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
                                                                        The time-limit for implementation of the directive expired on
      Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of
                                                                        31 July 2001.
      the Council of 25 May 1999 on certain aspects of the
      sale of consumer goods and associated guarantees ( 1), the
      Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
                                                                        (1 ) OJ 29.7.2000, L 193, p. 75.
      under that directive;
—     order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 10 June 2004 in Case C-333/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 98/50/EC — Transfer of undertakings — Safeguarding of employees' rights)

text:
               24.7.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 190/3

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Third Chamber)
   of 10 June 2004
   in Case C-333/03: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Failure to transpose Directive 98/50/EC - Transfer of undertakings - Safeguarding of employees' rights)
   (2004/C 190/05)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-333/03: Commission of the European Communities (Agent: M.-J. Jonczy ) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: S. Schreiner) - application for a declaration that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ 1998 L 201, p. 88) or, in any event, by failing to inform the Commission thereof, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive - the Court (Third Chamber), composed of: A. Rosas, acting for the President of the Third Chamber, R. Schintgen and N. Colneric (Rapporteur), Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 10 June 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 98/50/EC of 29 June 1998 amending Directive 77/187/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 213 of 6.9.2003.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of that court of 23 September 1998, in the case of Ministério Publico and Fazenda Pública v. Epson Europe BV (Case C-375/98)

text:
C 378/12              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                     5.12.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo                       administrative provisions of the Member States
Tribunal Administrativo, Second Chamber, by judgment of                 relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco
that court of 23 September 1998, in the case of MinisteÂrio             products;
     Publico and Fazenda PuÂblica v. Epson Europe BV
                       (Case C-375/98)                              2. Order the defendants to pay the costs.
                        (98/C 378/21)
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    Ð Lack of authority to act under Article 100a of the EC
European Communities by a judgment of the Second
                                                                        Treaty: Articles 100 and 100a of the EC Treaty are
Chamber of the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo
                                                                        not available as a legal basis for approximation
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 23 September 1998,
                                                                        measures whose normative content does not contribute
which was received at the Court Registry on 19 October
                                                                        specifically and substantially to improving the
1998, for a preliminary ruling in the case of MinisteÂrio
                                                                        functioning of the internal market. According to its
Publico and Fazenda PuÂblica v. Epson Europe BV on the
                                                                        preamble, the directive is not directed at internal
following questions:
                                                                        market freedom for tobacco products but only at that
                                                                        of the advertising materials themselves and the
                                                                        freedom to provide services of suppliers in the
Must Article 5(4) of Council Directive 90/435/EEC (1)
                                                                        advertising sector. Because of the purely national
of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation
                                                                        character of tobacco advertising, there are however Ð
applicable in the case of parent companies and
                                                                        in the absence of cross-frontier movement Ð no
subsidiaries of different Member States, where it fixes the
                                                                        barriers to trade at all for most advertising materials.
exceptional limits of 15 % and 10 % for Portugal, be
                                                                        Even in the only sector of tobacco advertising in
interpreted to the effect that such limits refer only to the
                                                                        which there are the beginnings of such movement
levying of imposto sobre o rendimento das pessoas
                                                                        (print media), none of the periodicals achieves a
colectivas' (in Portugal)?
                                                                        market position in another Member State which could
                                                                        be described as appreciable according to the criteria of
                                                                        Community competition law. Finally, the directive is in
Or does it extend to any tax on the income from shares,
                                                                        fact inappropriate for achieving the internal market
levied on dividends, regardless of the legislative instrument
                                                                        within the meaning of the second paragraph of
which provides for it?'
                                                                        Article 7(a) of the EC Treaty simply because it
                                                                        proposes to remove alleged hindrances by prohibiting
(1) OJ L 225, 20.8.1990, p. 6.                                          the economic activity concerned, which can only be
                                                                        the basis of trade between States.
                                                                        Furthermore, the directive has the effect of restricting
                                                                        competition outside the tobacco sector, in that it also
                                                                        covers advertising for diversification products which
                                                                        are marketed under brands which were originally used
Action brought on 19 October 1998 by the Federal
                                                                        for tobacco products only (umbrella brands').
Republic of Germany against the European Parliament
          and the Council of the European Union
                       (Case C-376/98)                                  In reality, the clear main objective of the contested
                                                                        directive is the protection of health, as also follows in
                        (98/C 378/22)                                   particular from its legislative history. Under Article
                                                                        129(4) of the EC Treaty, however, the Council is
                                                                        prohibited from adopting any harmonisation of the
An action against the European Parliament and the                       laws and regulations of the Member States for the
Council of the European Union was brought before                        achievement of that objective, at least as principal
the Court of Justice of the European Communities                        objective.
on 19 October 1998 by the Federal Republic of
Germany, represented by Claus-Dieter Quassowski,                    Ð Breach of Articles 57(2) and 66 of the EC Treaty:
Regierungsdirektor in the Federal Ministry of Economic                  Since the contested directive does not make easier' but
Affairs, D-53107 Bonn, and Jochim Sedemund,                             forbids the activities of the tobacco advertising sector,
Rechtsanwalt, of Charlottenstraûe 65, D-10117 Berlin.                   both nationally and Ð in so far as it exists Ð in a
                                                                        cross-frontier context, those articles are also manifestly
                                                                        ruled out as legal bases.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð (In the alternative) Breach of the principle of
1. Annul Directive 98/43/EC (1) of the European                         proportionality (third paragraph of Article 3(b) of the
    Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the                 EC Treaty): A directive which, like the present one,
    approximation of the laws, regulations and                          essentially only obstructs future movement of goods


title: Case C-328/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

text:
               18.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 309/25

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria (Italy) lodged on 31 May 2017 — Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA and Others v Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria
   (Case C-328/17)
   (2017/C 309/31)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per la Liguria

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Amt Azienda Trasporti e Mobilità SpA, Atc Esercizio SpA, Atp Esercizio Sr, Riviera Trasporti SpA, Tpl Linea Srl

      Defendants: Atpl Liguria — Agenzia regionale per il trasporto pubblico locale SpA, Regione Liguria

      Question referred

   Do Article 1(1), (2) and (3) and Article 2(1)(b) of Directive 89/665/EEC (1) on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts, preclude a national law which recognises only economic operators that applied to take part in a tendering procedure as being able to challenge the documents relating to a tendering procedure, even when the action criticises the tendering procedure as a matter of principle because the rules of the tendering procedure make it highly unlikely that the economic operator would be awarded the contract?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordination of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of review procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts (OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 33).


title: Case T-232/12: Action brought on 29 may 2012 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola EOOD (ULTRA CHOCO)

text:
               11.8.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 243/21

         Action brought on 29 may 2012 — Wilmar Trading v OHIM — Agroekola EOOD (ULTRA CHOCO)
   (Case T-232/12)
   2012/C 243/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Wilmar Trading Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore) (represented by: E. Miller, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Agroekola EOOD (Sofia, Bulgaria)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 March 2012 in case R 87/2012-1;

               —

               Order OHIM to consider the appeal filed against the decision of the Opposition Division of 10 November 2011 on opposition No B001760043 and to process in the normal course.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, for goods in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark application No 9221111

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Singaporean trade mark registration T0113987B of the word mark ‘ultra choco’ for goods in class 29; European and Bulgarian non-registered trade mark ‘ULTRA CHOCO’, invoking Articles 8(3) and 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Deemed the appeal not to have been filed

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(3)(a)(ii) and (b) and 8(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2869/95 of 13 December 1995 on the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).


title: Case C-130/16 P: Appeal brought on 1 March 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 16 December 2015 in Case T-547/15, Anastasia-Soultana Gaki v European Commission

text:
               14.11.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 419/25

         Appeal brought on 1 March 2016 by Anastasia-Soultana Gaki against the order of the General Court (Ninth Chamber) made on 16 December 2015 in Case T-547/15, Anastasia-Soultana Gaki v European Commission
   (Case C-130/16 P)
   (2016/C 419/33)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: Anastasia-Soultana Gaki (represented by: A. Heinen, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission
   By order of 22 September 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Tenth Chamber) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear her own costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 17 December 1998 in Case C-244/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie): Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v. Gerdina Lustig (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Old-age benefits - Articles 45 and 49 - Calculation of benefits where the person concerned does not simultaneously fulfil the conditions laid down by all the legislations under which periods of insurance or residence were completed)

text:
C 48/6               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    20.2.1999
of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese Republic and              English Special Edition 1969 (II), p. 412) Ð the Court
the adjustments to the Treaties (OJ L 302, 15.11.1985,               (Sixth Chamber), composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President
p. 23) and as subsequently amended by Council                        of the Chamber, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 7),             (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; S.
and on the interpretation of that regulation Ð the Court             Alber, Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
(Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.-P. Puissochet                       Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
(Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. C. Moitinho de            17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:
Almeida, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward and M. Wathelet,
Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on            Article 12(1)(a) of Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of
17 December 1998, in which it has ruled:                             17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of
                                                                     capital must be interpreted as allowing a tax to be
                                                                     charged in the event of a transfer of shares irrespective,
Consideration of the questions referred for a preliminary            first, of whether the company issuing the shares is listed
ruling has revealed nothing of such a kind as to affect the          on a Stock Exchange and, secondly, of whether the shares
validity of heading D, paragraph 4, of Annex VI to                   are transferred on the Stock Exchange or directly from the
Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971                  transferor to the transferee.
on the application of social security schemes to employed
persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
                                                                     (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
families moving within the Community, as amended and
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as adapted by
part VIII of Annex I to the Act concerning the conditions
of accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the Portuguese
Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties and as
subsequently amended by Council Regulation (EEC)
No 1248/92.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.                                                                    (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                of 17 December 1998
                                                                     in Case C-244/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                     the Hof van Cassatie): Rijksdienst voor Pensioenen v.
                                                                                Gerdina Lustig (1)
                                                                     (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 Ð Old-age benefits Ð
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  Articles 45 and 49 Ð Calculation of benefits where the
                       (Sixth Chamber)                               person concerned does not simultaneously fulfil the
                                                                     conditions laid down by all the legislations under which
                    of 17 December 1998                                    periods of insurance or residence were completed)
in Case C-236/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                                    (1999/C 48/12)
the éstre Landsret): Skatteministeriet v. Aktieselskabet
                Forsikringsselskabet Codan (1)
(Directive 69/335/EEC Ð Indirect taxes on the raising of                             (Language of the case: Dutch)
capital Ð Tax on transfer of shares not listed on a Stock
                          Exchange)
                        (1999/C 48/11)                                 (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                               published in the European Court Reports)
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     In Case C-244/97: Reference to the Court under
                                                                     Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Hof van Cassatie
                                                                     (Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       pending before that court between Rijksdienst voor
         published in the European Court Reports)                    Pensioenen v. Gerdina Lustig Ð on the interpretation of
                                                                     Articles 45 and 49 of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                     No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social
In Case C-236/97: reference to the Court under Article 177           security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed
of the EC Treaty from the éstre Landsret (Eastern                    persons and to members of their families moving within
Regional Court) (Denmark) for a preliminary ruling in the            the Community, in the version amended and updated by
proceedings pending before that court between                        Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (OJ L 230, 22.8.1984, p. 6),
Skatteministeriet and Aktieselskabet Forsikringsselskabet            as amended by Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92 (OJ L 136,
Codan Ð on the interpretation of Article 12(1)(a) of                 19.5.1992, p. 7) and Regulation (EC) No 3096/95 (OJ
Directive 69/335/EEC of the Council of 17 July 1969                  L 335, 30.12.1995, p. 10) Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),
concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ,             composed of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber,
 ---pagebreak--- 20.2.1999             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 48/7
G. Hirsch, G. F. Mancini, H. Ragnemalm and R.                          Metalarbejderforbund, acting on behalf of John Lauge and
Schintgen        (Rapporteur),      Judges;     N.      Fennelly,      Others, and Lùnmodtagernes Garantifond Ð on the
Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl, Principal Administrator,                 interpretation of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1)
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on, in which it                and Article 4(4) of Council Directive 75/129/EEC of
held:                                                                  17 February 1975 on the approximation of the laws of the
                                                                       Member States relating to collective redundancies (OJ
                                                                       L 48, 22.2.1975, p. 29), as amended by Directive
Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of Council Regulation (EEC)                       92/56/EEC, (OJ L 245, 26.8.1992, p. 3) Ð the Court
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social                (Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. Hirsch, President of the
security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed                 Second Chamber, acting as President of the Sixth
persons and to members of their families moving within                 Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm
the Community, in the version amended and updated by                   (Rapporteur) and K. M. Ioannou, Judges; G. Cosmas,
Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, and Article 49(1)(b)(ii) of               Advocate-General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, in the version resulting                  the Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 December 1998,
from Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83, as amended by                        in which it has ruled:
Regulation (EEC) No 1248/92, and Regulation (EC)
No 3096/95, must be interpreted as requiring the
competent institution, where the person concerned fulfils              The second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Article 4(4) of
the conditions laid down by one legislation for payment of             Council Directive 75/129/EEC of 17 February 1975 on
an old-age pension, albeit a limited one, without recourse             the approximation of the laws of the Member States
being necessary to periods of insurance or residence                   relating to collective redundancies, as amended by
completed under another legislation whose conditions are               Directive 92/56/EEC, must be interpreted to the effect
not fulfilled, nevertheless to take into account, in                   that the derogations provided for therein do not apply to
accordance with Article 46 of the same regulation, periods             collective redundancies occurring on the same day as that
completed under the latter legislation where, as a result,             on which the employer files a winding-up petition and
an old-age benefit of a higher amount may be awarded up                terminates the undertaking's activities, and the competent
until such time as the conditions laid down under the                  court subsequently, and without any deferment other than
latter legislation are also fulfilled.                                 that resulting from the date which it sets for the hearing,
                                                                       issues a winding-up order pursuant to the winding-up
(1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.                                               petition, that order taking effect for a number of purposes
                                                                       from the date on which the petition was filed.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 252, 16.8.1997.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)
                     of 17 December 1998
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
in Case C-250/97 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Civilret, Hillerùd): Dansk Metalarbejderforbund,                                          (Fifth Chamber)
acting on behalf of John Lauge and Others v.                                               of 17 December 1998
                Lùnmodtagernes Garantifond (1)
                                                                       in Case C-306/97 (request for a preliminary ruling from
(Directive 75/129/EEC Ð Collective redundancies Ð                      the High Court): Connemara Machine Turf Co. Ltd v.
Termination of the establishment's operations as the result                                 Coillte Teoranta (1)
                     of a judicial decision)
                                                                       (Public supply contracts Ð Definition of contracting
                         (1999/C 48/13)
                                                                                authority)
                                                                                (1999/C 48/14)
                 (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                       In Case C-306/97: Reference to the Court under
                                                                       Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the High Court (Ireland)
In Case C-250/97: reference to the Court under Article 177             for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before
of the EC Treaty from the Civilret (Civil Court),                      that court between Connemara Machine Turf Co. Ltd and
Hillerùd (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in the                    Coillte Teoranta Ð on the interpretation of Article 1 of
proceedings pending before that court between Dansk                    Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976