title: Case T-230/02: Action brought on 2 August 2002 by X against Commission of the European Communities

text:
C 247/20               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                    12.10.2002
Action brought on 26 July 2002 by the Organisation des                    In support of its claims, the applicant pleads:
Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran (OMPI) against the Council
                     of the European Union
                                                                          —    Breach of its rights of defence in that it was not given the
                                                                               opportunity to be heard before being included in the
                         (Case T-228/02)                                       contested lists.
                         (2002/C 247/31)                                  —    In the alternative, failure to have regard to the right to
                                                                               revolt against tyranny and oppression as a superior rule
                                                                               of law. It observes in this regard that it is conducting
                   (Language of the case: French)                              legitimate resistance against the Iranian regime, while
                                                                               complying with the fundamental principles of democracy
                                                                               and of respect for human rights. Its resistance is, more-
                                                                               over, supported by the international community.
An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European                —    In the further alternative, breach of the principle of non-
Communities on 26 July 2002 by the Organisation des                            discrimination, both in relation to the organisations
Modjahedines du Peuple d’Iran (People’s Mujahidin of Iran)                     which are included in the list and in relation to those that
(OMPI) established in Auvers sur Oise (France), represented by                 are not, for example Al-Qaida. It points out in this regard
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, Lawyer.                                                   that, unlike almost all the organisations included in the
                                                                               list, it is not opposing a democratic regime, that it has
                                                                               never undertaken actions against civilians and that it is
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                    the only resistance movement which is acting within
                                                                               Iran’s borders and defending peace in the region.
—     partially annul Council Decision 2002/460/EC of 17 June
      2002 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
      No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed
      against certain persons and entities with a view to
      combating terrorism and repealing Decision 2002/334/
      EC;
—     partially annul Common Position 2002/462/CFSP of
      17 June 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/
      CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat              Action brought on 2 August 2002 by X against Com-
      terrorism and repealing Common Position 2002/340/                               mission of the European Communities
      CFSP;
—     partially annul Common Position 2002/340/CFSP of                                            (Case T-230/02)
      2 May 2002 updating Common Position 2001/931/CFSP
      on the application of specific measures to combat
      terrorism, revising the list of persons covered;                                            (2002/C 247/32)
—     declare all those legislative texts inapplicable to the
      applicant;                                                                             (Language of the case: French)
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay OMPI
      the sum of EUR 1 for harm suffered;
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay all the              An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      costs.                                                              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 2 August 2002 by X, represented
                                                                          by Gilles Bounéou, lawyer.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                          The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant organisation seeks annulment of the legislative             —    order the defendant to pay EUR 75 000 by way of
texts which are the subject-matter of the present action in so                 compensation or any other amount to be determined ex
far as they expressly refer to it. The applicant states in this                aequo et bono by the Court;
regard that inclusion in the contested lists is a penalty which
causes it considerable harm, if only because it is equiparated
with terrorist organisations denounced by it.                             —    order the defendant to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- 12.10.2002             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                     C 247/21
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Action brought on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH against the
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
The applicant, a former Commission official, claims that he
was the victim of harassment by the Commission. He alleges,
in that respect, wilful failure to implement a judgment of the                                     (Case T-239/02)
Court of First Instance (1), breach of the obligation to provide
reasons, breach of the principle of equal treatment and of non-
discrimination and breach by the Commission of its duty to                                         (2002/C 247/34)
have regard for the welfare of officials.
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
( 1) Case T-214/00 X v Commission [2001] ECR FP-IA-143 ; FP-II-
     663.
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                          European Communities on 8 August 2002 by Commonfood
                                                                          Handelsgesellschaft für Agrar-Produkte mbH, of Langen (Ger-
Action brought on 2 August 2002 by Christos Michael                       many), represented by K. Landry and L. Harings, lawyers.
   against the Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-234/02)                                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                         (2002/C 247/33)                                  —     annul the Commission’s decision No REC 4/01 of 5 March
                                                                                2002;
                    (Language of the case: Greek)
                                                                          —     order the defendant to reimburse to the applicant the
                                                                                costs necessarily incurred in the proceedings.
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 2 August 2002 by Christos
Michael, resident in Brussels, represented by K. Tagaras,                 Pleas in law and main arguments
Lawyer.
                                                                          On the basis of oral information provided by the competent
The applicant claims that the Court should:                               customs authority, to the effect that production of import
                                                                          certificates for the importation of chickens in the context of
—      allow the application;                                             two specific quotas was not necessary, the applicant on 24 July
                                                                          1995 submitted a declaration in respect of the import in
—      annul the contested measures;                                      several consignments of frozen chicken pieces originating in
                                                                          Thailand under CN Code No 0207 41 10. — The competent
—      order the defendant to pay the costs.                              principal customs office initially granted relief from import
                                                                          duties, but subsequently charged the applicant import duties
                                                                          amounting to EUR 113 566,14. The applicant raised an
                                                                          objection to that decision and the national authorities referred
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           the matter to the Commission for a decision. By the contested
                                                                          decision, the Commission found that the import duties were
                                                                          to be entered in the accounts after the event.
This is an action challenging the decision concerning the
appointment of officials to the posts of Deputy Head of Unit
DG FC.A.1 and Head of the Sector ‘Politiques internes et
Agences’ in that unit.                                                    The pleas in law and arguments correspond to those advanced
                                                                          in Case T-309/01 Peter Biegi Nahrungsmittel GmbH v Com-
                                                                          mission (1).
The applicant pleads infringement of Articles 5, 25, 43 and 45
of the Staff Regulations and of the principle of equal treatment.
He also claims that there was a manifest error of assessment              (1 ) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002, p. 14.
and misuse of powers in making the contested appointments.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof, by order of that court of 26 May 1997, in the case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vorarlberg (Case C-224/97)

text:
26 . 7 . 97               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 228/ 13
        awarded under the procedure therein mentioned or                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Arrondissements
        are the provisions of the Directive relevant to the                 rechtbank, Maastricht, by judgment of that court of
        services mentioned in Annex I ( A ) capable of                      13 June 1997 in the criminal proceedings against Johannes
        fulfilling the preconditions laid down in the                                               Martinus Lemmens
        abovementioned case ?                                                                         ( Case C-226/97)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/27)
6.      Is there under Article 5 or other provisions of the
        EEC Treaty, or under Directive 92/50/EEC, an                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
        obligation on the State to interfere in existing legal              European Communities by judgment of the Arrondisse
        situations concluded for an indefinite period or for                mentsrechtbank ( District Court), Maastricht, of 13 June
        several years but which were not entered into in                    1997, which was received at the Court Registry on 18 June
        accordance with the abovementioned Directive .                      1997, for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
                                                                            against Johannes Martinus Lemmens on the following
(') OJ No L 209 , 24 . 7. 1992, p . 1 .                                     questions :
( 2 ) OJ No L 395 , 30 . 12 . 1989 , p . 33 .
(■') Case 41 /74 [ 1974 ] ECR 1337.                                         1 . Can a defendant in criminal proceedings instituted for
                                                                                an offence contrary to Article 8 (2 ) ( a ) of the Wegen
                                                                                verkeerswet ( Road Traffic Law) 1994 successfully rely
                                                                                on the application of the Regeling Ademanalyse
                                                                                ( Regulation on breath analysis ) ( Ned.Stcrt 1987, 187),
                                                                                as amended, laying down further rules concerning the
                                                                                requirements for breath-analysis apparatus and the
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungs                         tests which such apparatus must undergo, being set
gerichtshof, by order of that court of 26 May 1997, in the                       aside
               case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vorarlberg
                           ( Case C-224/97 )                                     — where, for the purposes of the investigation
                                                                                referred to in Article 8 ( 2 ) ( a ) of the Wegenverkeer
                             ( 97/C 228/26 )                                          swet 1994, that Regulation is based, pursuant to
                                                                                Article 65 of the Invoeringswet Wegenverkeerswet
                                                                                ( Law implementing the Road Traffic Law) 1994,
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                                on Article 163 of the Wegenverkeerswet viewed in
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsge                                   conjunction with Article 5 of the Besluit Alcoho
richtshof (Administrative Court of Appeal ) of 26 May                                 londerzoeken ( Decree on the conduct of tests to
 1997, received at the Court Registry on 16 June 1997, for                            determine alcohol level ) ( Stb . 1987, 432 ), as
a preliminary ruling in the case of Erich Ciola v. Land Vor                          amended,
arlberg on the following questions :                                             — in view of the failure to notify the Regulation to
                                                                                the European Commission, as required by Article 8
                                                                                of Directive 83/189/EEC O ?
 1 . Are the provisions concerning the freedom to provide
       services to be interpreted as precluding a Member
                                                                             2 . Should a court in criminal proceedings of the kind
       State from prohibiting the operator of a yachting
       harbour, on pain of criminal prosecution, from hiring
                                                                                referred to above disapply that Regulation of its own
                                                                                motion on account of the failure to notify it as
       out more than a specific quota of moorings to boat
       owners who are resident in another Member State ?                         required ?
                                                                             (') OJ No L 109 , 26 . 4 . 1983 , p . 8 .
 2 . Does Community law, in particular the provisions
       concerning the freedom to provide services in
       conjunction with Article 5 of the EC Treaty and
       Article 2 of the Act concerning the conditions of
       accession of the Republic of Austria, the Republic of                 Action brought on 18 June 1997 by the Commission
       Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden and the                             of the European Communities against the Portuguese
       adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                                       Republic
       Union is founded ( OJ No C 241 , 29 . 8 . 1994, p. 21 ;
       OJ No L 1 , 1 . 1 . 1995, p. 1 ), give the provider of the                                       ( Case C-227/97)
       services referred to in question 1 above, who is                                                    ( 97/C 228/28 )
       resident in Austria, the right to assert that the
       prohibition issued in the terms set out in question 1 in
       an administrative decision ( Bescheid) adopted in 1990                An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
       in regard to a specific person should not be applied in               before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
       decisions    of the      Austrian      courts and    authorities      on 18 June 1997 by the Commission of the European
       adopted after 1 January 1995 ?                                        Communities, represented by Francisco de Sousa Fialho,
                                                                             of its Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for
                                                                             service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la
                                                                             Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 19 October 1995 in Case T-194/94: John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers Ltd v. Council of the European Union (Transparency - Access to information - Council Decision refusing access to documents relating to its deliberations - Interpretation of Article 4 (2) of Decision 93/731/EC)

text:
9 . 12 . 95             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      No C 333/ 13
— ( As regards workers residing for less than three                          a simple attestation of the fact that the worker
      months )                                                               concerned has reported his presence on Belgian territory
      Although Article 8 ( 1 ) ( a ) and ( c ) of Directive                  (Article 8 ( 2 ) of Directive 68/360/EEC ).
      68/360/EEC provides that Member States are, without
                                                                      (') OJ , English Special Edition 1968 ( II ), p. 485 .
      issuing a residence permit, to recognize the right of           ( 2 ) Law of 15 December 1980 on access to the territory, residence,
      residence , the Belgian legislation in force requires the             establishment and the departure of aliens ( as amended by the
      persons concerned to apply for a document ( the issue of              Law of 6 May 1993 ); Royal Decree of 8 October 1981 on access
      which may, depending on the commune involved, give                    to the territory, residence , establishment and the departure of
      rise to the payment of a charge ) amounting to more than              aliens ( as amended several times ).
                                                     COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                               3 . orders the Council to pay the costs;
                       of 19 October 1995
in Case T-194/94 : John Carvel and Guardian Newspapers                4 . orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the Kingdom of the
            Ltd v. Council of the European Union ( 1 )                       Netherlands and the European Parliament to bear their
                                                                             own costs .
(Transparency — Access to information — Council
Decision refusing access to documents relating to its
deliberations — Interpretation of Article 4 (2) of Decision           (•) OJ No C 202 , 23 . 7 . 1994 .
                             93/731/EC)
                           ( 95/C 333/25 )
                  (Language of the case: English)
In Case T-194/94 : John Carvel, residing in Brussels, and              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Guardian Newspapers Ltd, whose registered office is in                                          of 26 October 1995
Manchester, United Kingdom, represented by Onno
                                                                      in Case T-l 85 /94 : Geotronics SA v. Commission of the
W. Brouwer and Frederic P. Louis, of the Brussels Bar,
assisted by Deirdre Curtin, of the University of Utrecht, with                              European Communities ( L )
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                (Phare programme — Restricted invitation to tender —
Marc Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, supported by Kingdom of                   Action for annulment — Admissibility — EEA Agree
Denmark, ( Agent: Peter Biering ), Kingdom of the                                         ment — Action for damages)
Netherlands ( Agents : A. Bos and J. W. de Zwaan ) and                                              ( 95/C 333/26 )
European Parliament ( Agents : Gregorio Garzon Clariana
and Francois Vainker ) against Council of the European
Union ( Agents : Jill Aussant and Giorgio Maganza ) —                                    (Language of the case: English)
application for annulment of decisions of the Council
adopted pursuant to Council Decision 93/731 /EC of
20 December 1993 on public access to Council documents                In Case T-l 85/94 : Geotronics SA, a company with its
( OJ 1993 L 340, p. 43 ) — the Court of First Instance                registered office at Lognes ( France ), represented by Tommy
 ( Second Chamber, Extended Composition ), composed of                Pettersson, of the Swedish Bar, with an address for service in
B. Vesterdorf, President, D. P. M. Barrington, A. Saggio,              Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt and Medernach,
H. Kirschner and A. Kalogeropoulos, Judges; H. Jung,                   8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, against the Commission of the
Registrar, gave a judgment on 19 October 1995 , in which               European Communities ( Agents : Karen Banks and, at the
 it :                                                                  hearing, John Forman ) — application for, first, the
                                                                       annulment of the Commission 's decision of 10 March 1994
                                                                       rejecting the applicant's tender for the supply of electronic
 I . annuls the implied decision of the Council refusing the           tacheometers under the Phare Programme, and, second,
       applicants access to the preparatory reports, the               compensation under Articles 178 and 215 of the EC Treaty
       minutes, attendance and voting records of the Justice           for the damage which the applicant claims to have suffered
       Council of 29 and 30 November 1993 and the decision             as a result of the contested decision — the Court of First
       contained in the letter of the Council of 17 May 1994           Instance ( Fourth Chamber ), composed of K. Lenaerts
       refusing access to the minutes of the Agriculture Council       ( President of the Chamber ), R. Schintgen and
       of 24 and 25 January 1 994;                                     R. García-Valdecasas, Judges; B. Pastor, Administrator, for
                                                                       the Registrar, has given a judgment on 26 October 1995 in
 2 . dismisses the remainder of the application;                       which it:


title: Case C-278/09: Order of the Court of 20 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN LIMITED (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters — National Court not eligible to refer questions to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling for the purposes of Article 68(1) EC — Court’s lack of jurisdiction)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/18

         Order of the Court of 20 November 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — France) — Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez v Société MGN LIMITED
   (Case C-278/09) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters - National Court not eligible to refer questions to the Court of Justice for preliminary ruling for the purposes of Article 68(1) EC - Court’s lack of jurisdiction)
   2010/C 24/30
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Tribunal de grande instance de Paris

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Olivier Martinez, Robert Martinez

      Defendant: Société MGN LIMITED

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de grande instance de Paris — Interpretation of Articles 2 and 5(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ L 12 of 16.1.2001, p. 1) — Competent jurisdiction for the resolution of an action for infringement of privacy and the right of personal portrayal, following the placing online of information and photographs on an internet site disseminated from a server housed in the territory of a Member State other than that in which the plaintiff is domiciled — Determination of the place where the event which gave rise to the damage occurred — Relevance, in order to determine the place, of the number of connections to the internet page at issue effected from the Member State in which the plaintiff is domiciled, the nationality of the plaintiff and, where appropriate, the language in which the information was disseminated

      Operative part

   The Court of Justice of the European Communities has no jurisdiction to answer the question referred by the Tribunal de grande instance de Paris in Case C 278/09.

      (1)  JO C 220 of 12.09.2009


title: Case T-258/03: Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v Europol

text:
C 213/42                EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          6.9.2003
Pleas in law and main arguments                                            Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicants in Case T-391/02 ( 1) brought an action for                 The applicant has worked for the defendant since 1 July 1999.
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European                  On 1 July 2003 his current contract expires. However, the
Parliament and of the Council ( 2) and claimed that the Court              applicant’s request for a renewal of her contract was rejected
should annul the Regulation in so far as derogations to the                by the defendant. The applicant is challenging that decision.
prohibition on the use of catering waste in feed under
Article 22 are permitted for no more than four years from
1 November 2002. The contested decision adopts transitional                In support of his application the applicant first alleges an
measures in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Regulation.               infringement of the duty to provide a statement of reasons.
The applicants claim that the time-limit on the transitional               The applicant goes on to assert that the defendant exceeded its
measures is unlawful. It is not necessary for the purpose of               policy-making powers. The defendant drew up basic principles,
achieving the intended objective. For the rest, the applicants             policy rules and a stage plan to ensure that contracts are
refer to the pleas and arguments put forward in Case T-391/                extended in a clear and transparent manner. According to the
02.                                                                        applicant the defendant exceeded its margin of discretion in
                                                                           the application of those rules.
( 1) OJ 1992 C 44, p. 42.
( 2) Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and           Finally, the applicant submits that there was an infringement
     of the Council of 3 October 2002 laying down health rules             of the duty of care, as well as an infringement of the principle
     concerning animal by-products not intended for human consump-         of equal treatment.
     tion (OJ 2002 L 273, p. 1).
                                                                           Lastly, the applicant asserts that the fact that he is a member
                                                                           of Europol’s supervisory body and a union member are the
                                                                           reasons why his contract is not being extended. The applicant
                                                                           is of the view that employees who are members of a
                                                                           co-determination body must enjoy extra protection against
                                                                           dismissal and that in such cases it is for the employer to show
                                                                           that there is no connection between the dismissal and the
Action brought on 11 July 2003 by Andreas Mausolf v                        activities of the employee.
                               Europol
                          (Case T-258/03)
                          (2003/C 213/81)
                                                                                Removal from the register of Case T-280/93 (1)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                                (2003/C 213/82)
An action against Europol was brought before the Court of                                     (Language of the Case: English)
First Instance of the European Communities on 11 July 2003
by Andreas Mausolf, residing in Leiden (Netherlands) and
represented by M.F. Baltussen and P. Casparis.
                                                                           By order of 12 June 2003 the President of the First Chamber
                                                                           of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                ordered the removal from the register of Case T-280/93: Brian
                                                                           Stephen Garrett v Council of the European Union and
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities.
(1) annul the (partial) rejection by Europol on 14 April 2003
        of the applicant’s complaint against the decision of
        30 September 2002, together with the latter decision;
                                                                           (1 ) OJ C 302 of 19.11.1992.
(2) order Europol to pay the applicant compensation includ-
        ing in any event the costs of the proceedings.


title: Case C-207/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Hotel Sava Rogaška, Gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Approximation of laws — Natural mineral water — Directive 2009/54/EC — Article 8(2) — Annex I — Prohibition on marketing ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ under more than one trade description — Meaning)

text:
               24.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/15

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 24 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovno sodišče (Slovenia)) — Hotel Sava Rogaška, Gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o. v Republika Slovenija
   (Case C-207/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Approximation of laws - Natural mineral water - Directive 2009/54/EC - Article 8(2) - Annex I - Prohibition on marketing ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ under more than one trade description - Meaning))
   (2015/C 279/17)
   Language of the case: Slovenian

      Referring court

   Vrhovno sodišče

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Hotel Sava Rogaška, gostinstvo, turizem in storitve, d.o.o.

      Defendant: Republika Slovenija

      Operative part of the judgment

   The notion of ‘natural mineral water from one and the same spring’ contained in Article 8(2) of Directive 2009/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 June 2009 on the exploitation and marketing of natural mineral waters must be interpreted as referring to a natural mineral water that is drawn from one or more natural or bore exits, and which originates in one and the same underground water table or in one and the same underground deposit, where, at all those natural or bore exits, that water has identical characteristics, pursuant to the criteria specified in Annex I to Directive 2009/54, which remain stable within the limits of natural fluctuation.

      (1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.


title: Case F-125/07: Action brought on 29 October 2007 — Hau v European Parliament

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/37

         Action brought on 29 October 2007 — Hau v European Parliament
   (Case F-125/07)
   (2008/C 79/70)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Armin Hau (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: E Boigelot, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Parliament
   Form of order sought

               —

               annul the decision of the Appointing Authority not to include the applicant's name on the list of those to be promoted to grade B*6 and B*7 in the ‘2006 promotion exercise’;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   In support of his application, the applicant pleads infringement of the second paragraph of Article 25 and Article 45 of the Staff Regulations, the decision of the Office of 6 July 2005 and its implementing measures, and Article 5 of the Internal Guidelines for Promotions Advisory Committees.
   Furthermore, the applicant claims the existence of manifest errors of assessment, misuse and arrogation of powers, and infringement of a number of general principles of law.


title: Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Nicolaos Progoulis against the order made on 21 September 1998 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-237/97 between Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-431/98 P)

text:
C 20/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.1.1999
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                         from 1 March 1983, together with compound
Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the                            legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;
directive expired on 22 September 1996.
                                                                           Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                                the respondent to pay the costs of the present
(2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.                                      proceedings, together with the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               the European Communities in Case T-237/87.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Nicolaos
Progoulis against the order made on 21 September 1998                Ð     manifest error of law on the part of the Court of
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance, in that it wrongly assimilated the
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              present case to Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission:
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                      the appellant pleaded, as a material new fact,
                           Communities                                     the revelation in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
                                                                           Commission that the respondent applied a restrictive
                        (Case C-431/98 P)                                  policy as regards (re)grading after 1 September 1993,
                                                                           even in respect of officials recruited prior to that
                          (1999/C 20/40)
                                                                           date. He at no time claimed that the respondent had
                                                                           refused to apply to him the decision of 1 September
                                                                           1993, as amended following delivery of the judgment
An appeal against the order made on 21 September 1998                      in Alexopoulou, with a view to a subjective
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 examination of his exceptional' qualifications, as
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              was the case in Chauvin.
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 30 November 1998 by                      Ð     absence of an adequate statement of reasons.
Nicolaos Progoulis, represented by Konstantinos
Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias
Hardt.
                                                                     Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                     30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others and the
(1) set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
                                                                     Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported
      Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                     by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom
      21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97, in which the
                                                                                of the Netherlands
      appellant's application was dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case C-432/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/41)
(2) itself determine the dispute concerning:
      Ð annulment of the respondent's decision of 13 May             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
          1997 rejecting the appellant's complaint                   1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          concerning refusal of his application to be                of the European Communities in Case T-154/96 between
          regraded in step 2 of grade B 1 with retroactive           Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of Justice of
          effect from 1 March 1983 and for the financial             the European Communities, supported by the Council of
          consequences of the regrading applied for to be            the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
          taken into account and calculated retroactively            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          from 1 March 1983, together with compound                  Communities on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the
          legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;                 European Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ,
                                                                     Director in its Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                     TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for
      Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring           service in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro
          the respondent to pay him the amount                       Morbilli, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate
          corresponding to the financial consequences of             of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad
          the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively        Adenauer.


title: Case C-595/12: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Social policy — Directive 2006/54/EC — Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation — Training course for acquiring the status of a public official — Exclusion on grounds of a prolonged absence — Absence attributable to maternity leave)

text:
               28.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/5

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio (Italy)) — Loredana Napoli v Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria
   (Case C-595/12) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2006/54/EC - Equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation - Training course for acquiring the status of a public official - Exclusion on grounds of a prolonged absence - Absence attributable to maternity leave))
   2014/C 129/05
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Loredana Napoli

      Defendant: Ministero della Giustizia — Dipartimento dell’Amministrazione penitenziaria

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale per il Lazio — Interpretation of Articles 2(2)(c), 14(2) and 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation (OJ 2006 L 204, p. 23) — Direct effect — Course for acquiring the status of a public official — National legislation providing, in the event of justified absence exceeding 30 consecutive days, for exclusion from the course and enrolment on the next course — Absence attributable to maternity leave.

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 15 of Directive 2006/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2006 on the implementation of the principle of equal opportunities and equal treatment of men and women in matters of employment and occupation must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which, on grounds relating to the public interest, excludes a woman on maternity leave from a vocational training course which forms an integral part of her employment and which is compulsory in order to be able to be appointed definitively to a post as a civil servant and in order to benefit from an improvement in her employment conditions, while guaranteeing her the right to participate in the next training course organised, the date of which is nevertheless uncertain.

               2.

               Article 14(2) of Directive 2006/54 does not apply to national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which does not limit a specified activity solely to male workers but which delays access to that activity for female workers who have been unable to receive full vocational training as a result of compulsory maternity leave.

               3.

               The provisions of Article 14(1)(c) and Article 15 of Directive 2006/54 are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional to have direct effect.

      (1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.


title: Case C-247/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Wiesbaden (Germany) lodged on 3 May 2013 — Rudolf Reznicek v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-247/13)
   2013/C 215/07
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landgericht Wiesbaden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rudolf Reznicek

      Defendant: Hellenic Republic

      Question referred

   Is Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 [of the European Parliament and] of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service [in the Member States] of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters [(service of documents), and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000] (1) to be interpreted as meaning that an action — in which a purchaser of bonds issued by the defendant that were in the safe-keeping of Gries und Heissel Bankiers AG, in the securities account of the applicant, and in respect of which the applicant had not accepted the defendant’s exchange offer made at the end of February 2012, demands compensation for damages in the amount of the difference in value relative to an exchange of the bonds that was nonetheless effected in March 2012 and which was economically disadvantageous for the applicant — is to be regarded as a ‘civil or commercial matter’ within the meaning of the Regulation?

      (1)  OJ 2007 L 324, p. 79.


title: Case C-291/08: Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria

text:
               16.5.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 January 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-291/08) (1)

   2009/C 113/56

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 272, 25.10.2008.


title: Judgment of the Court of 14 December 2000 in Case C-110/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof): Emsland-Stärke GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Export refunds — Goods immediately re-imported into the Community — Abuse of rights)

text:
19.5.2001               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 150/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       Articles 9(1), 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Commission Regulation
                                                                             (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying down common
                                                                             detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on
                      of 14 December 2000                                    agricultural products, in the version resulting from Commission
                                                                             Regulation (EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985, must be interpreted
                                                                             as meaning that a Community exporter can forfeit his right to
in Case C-110/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling                         payment of a non-differentiated export refund if (a) the product in
from the Bundesfinanzhof): Emsland-Stärke GmbH v                             respect of which the export refund was paid, and which is sold to a
               Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (1)                                purchaser established in a non-member country, is, immediately after
                                                                             its release for home use in that non-member country, transported
                                                                             back to the Community under the external Community transit
(Agriculture — Export refunds — Goods immediately re-                        procedure and is there released for home use on payment of import
      imported into the Community — Abuse of rights)                         duties, without any infringement being established and (b) that
                                                                             operation constitutes an abuse on the part of that Community
                                                                             exporter.
                          (2001/C 150/01)
                                                                             A finding that there is an abuse presupposes an intention on the part
                   (Language of the case: German)                            of the Community exporter to benefit from an advantage as a result
                                                                             of the application of the Community rules by artificially creating the
                                                                             conditions for obtaining it. Evidence of this must be placed before the
                                                                             national court in accordance with the rules of national law, for
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published       instance by establishing that there was collusion between that exporter
                   in the European Court Reports)                            and the importer of the goods into the non-member country.
In Case C-110/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Bundesfinanzhof                  The fact that, before being re-imported into the Community, the
(Federal Finance Court) Germany, for a preliminary ruling in                 product was sold by the purchaser established in the non-member
the proceedings pending before that court between Emsland-                   country concerned to an undertaking also established in that country
Stärke GmbH and Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas — on the                          with which he has personal and commercial links is one of the facts
interpretation of Articles 10(1) and 20(2) to (6) of Commission              which can be taken into account by the national court when
Regulation (EEC) No 2730/79 of 29 November 1979 laying                       ascertaining whether the conditions giving rise to an obligation to
down common detailed rules for the application of the system                 repay refunds are fulfilled.
of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1979 L 317
p. 1), in the version resulting from Commission Regulation
(EEC) No 568/85 of 4 March 1985 (OJ 1985 L 65, p. 5) —
the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President,
C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola, M. Wathelet and V. Skouris                        (1) OJ C 174 of 19.6.1999.
(Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet,
P. Jann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur), R. Schintgen and F. Macken,
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Registrar, has given a judgment on 14 December 2000, in
which it has ruled:


title: Case C-469/12: Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH (Request for a preliminary ruling  — Area of freedom, security and justice  — Brussels Convention — Judicial cooperation in civil matters  — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001  — Article 5(1)(b)  — Jurisdiction  — Special jurisdiction  — Matters relating to a contract  — Concept of ‘provision of services’  — Storage contract)

text:
               7.4.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 102/2

         Order of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 14 November 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Handelsgericht Wien — Austria) — Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH v Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH
   (Case C-469/12) (1)

   ((Request for a preliminary ruling  - Area of freedom, security and justice  - Brussels Convention - Judicial cooperation in civil matters  - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001  - Article 5(1)(b)  - Jurisdiction  - Special jurisdiction  - Matters relating to a contract  - Concept of ‘provision of services’ - Storage contract))
   2014/C 102/02
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Handelsgericht Wien

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Krejci Lager & Umschlagbetriebs GmbH

      Defendant: Olbrich Transport und Logistik GmbH

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Handelsgericht Wien — Interpretation of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) — Special jurisdiction — Concept of provision of services — Storage contract.

      Operative part of the order

   The second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a contract relating to the storage of goods, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, constitutes a contract for the ‘provision of services’ within the meaning of that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 26 September 1996 in Case C-168/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza): Criminal proceedings against Luciano Arcaro (Cadmium discharges - Interpretation of Council Directives 76/464/EEC and 83/513/EEC - Direct effect - Possibility for a Directive to be relied on against an individual)

text:
No C 354/ 10           EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     23 . 11 . 96
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council            von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given
Directive 92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control              a judgment on 26 September 1996 , in which it rules :
rules and measures to combat African horse sickness ( OJ No
L 157, 1992, p. 19 ) and Council Directive 92/40/EEC of               1 . Article 3 of Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May
 19 May 1992 introducing Community measures for the                        1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous
control of avian influenza ( OJ No L 167, 1992, p. 1 ), the                substances discharged into the aquatic environment of
Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the            the Community is to be interpreted as making any
EC Treaty — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ), composed of:                      discharge of cadmium, irrespective of the date on which
C. N. Kakouris, President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn                 the plant from which it comes commenced operation,
and H. Ragnemalm ( Rapporteur), Judges; N. Fennelly,                       subject to the issue of a prior authorization.
Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on
26 September 1996 , in which it:                                      2 . In the absence of full transposition by a Member State
                                                                           within the time allowed of Directive 76/464/EEC, and
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt within the period                  therefore of Article 3 thereof, and of Council Directive
     prescribed the laws, regulations and administrative                   83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983 on limit values and
     provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive                 quality objectives for cadmium discharges, a public
     92/35/EEC of 29 April 1992 laying down control rules                  authority of that State may not rely on that Article 3
     and measures to combat African horse sickness and                     against an individual.
     Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992
     introducing Community measures for the control of                3 . There is no method of procedure in Community law
     avian influenza, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil            allowing the national court to eliminate national
     its obligations under Articles 20 and 22, respectively, of            provisions contrary to a provision of a Directive which
     those Directives;                                                     has not been transposed where that provision may not
                                                                           be relied upon before the national court.
2 . orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      (>) OJ No C 208 , 12 . 8 . 1995 .
(') OJ No C 159 , 24 . 6 . 1995 .
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber )
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                of 3 October 1996
                       (Fourth Chamber )
                     of 26 September 1996                             in Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany v.
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities ( ! )
in Case C-l 68/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Pretura Circondariale di Vicenza ): Criminal proceedings          (Clearance of accounts — EAGGF — Special premium for
                   against Luciano Arcaro (')                             beef and veal producers — Expenditure disallowed)
                                                                                ( 96/C 354/ 19 )
(Cadmium discharges — Interpretation of Council
Directives 76/464/EEC and 83/513/EEC — Direct effect
— Possibility for a Directive to be relied on against an                             (Language of the case : German)
                             individual)
                                                                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                          ( 96/C 354/18 )                                      published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)                      In Case C-41 /94 : Federal Republic of Germany (Agents :
                                                                      Ernst Roder and Bernd Kloke ) v. Commission of the
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          European Communities ( Agent: Ulrich Wolker, assisted by
          published in the European Court Reports)                    Georg M. Berrisch and Hans-Jiirgen Rabe ) — application
                                                                      for the annulment of Commission Decision 93/659/EC of
In Case C- 168/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177          25 November 1993 on the clearance of the accounts
of the EC Treaty from the Pretura Circondariale [District             presented by the Member States in respect of the
Magistrate's Court], Vicenza, ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling      expenditure for 1990 of the European Agricultural
in the criminal proceedings pending before that court                 Guidance and Guarantee Fund ( EAGGF ), Guarantee
against Luciano Arcaro — on the interpretation of Council             Section ( OJ No L 301 , 1993 , p. 13 ), to the extent to which it
Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused                did not charge to the EAGGF the sum of DM 7 518 141
by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic           disbursed by the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to
environment of the Community ( OJ No L 129, 1976 , p. 23 )            the Community scheme providing for a special premium for
and Council Directive 83/513/EEC of 26 September 1983                 beef and veal producers — the Court ( Sixth Chamber ),
on limit values and quality objectives for cadmium                    composed of C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ), President of the
discharges ( OJ No L 291 , 1983 , p. 1 ) — the Court ( Fourth         Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and J. L. Murray, Judges,
Chamber ), composed of: C. N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur ),                Advocate-General : A. La Pergola, Registrar: H. A. Riihl ,
President of the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn and H.                     Principal Administrator, gave a judgment on 3 October
Ragnemalm, Judges ; M. B. Elmer, Advocate-General ; H.                1996 , in which it:


title: Case T-179/03: Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

text:
2.8.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 184/43
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
                                                                          the Board of Appeal:             gistration
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilm’, applica-
sought:                          tion no 2 467 348
                                                                          Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
                                                                          Appeal:                          peal
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42
                                 (creating photographs etc.)
                                                                          Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)
                                                                                and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-
                                                                                ulation No 40/94 (1)
Decision contested before        Refusal by the examiner of re-
the Board of Appeal:             gistration
                                                                          (1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
                                                                              Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the applicant's ap-
Appeal:                          peal
Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b)          Action brought on 20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addi-
                                 and (c) and Article 7(2) of Reg-             mando and Others against the European Parliament
                                 ulation No 40/94 (1)
                                                                                (Case T-182/03)
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
    Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
                                                                                (2003/C 184/96)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
Action brought on 19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG &                          An action against the European Parliament was brought before
Co. OHG against the Office for Harmonisation in the                       the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)                       20 May 2003 by Gianmarco Addimando, residing in Luxem-
                                                                          bourg, and 32 other officials, represented by G. Bounéou,
                         (Case T-179/03)                                  lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (2003/C 184/95)
                                                                          The applicants claim that the Court should:
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
                                                                               changing, with effect from a year not further specified
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                 (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the                        during which the applicants were officials of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on                         European Parliament), the procedure for calculating the
19 May 2003 by CeWe Color AG & Co. OHG, Oldenburg                              annual expense of travelling to Greece in respect of the
(Germany), represented by Chr. Spintig, lawyer.                                journey via Brindisi, as taken into consideration for the
                                                                               destination of Athens;
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the                   or, in the alternative,
      defendant of 12 March 2003 in Case R 638/2002-3;
                                                                          —    annul the decision of the competent hierarchical authority
—     order the defendant to pay the costs.                                    to reimburse, with effect from a year not further specified
                                                                               (1993, 1996, 1997, or another year, and for the period
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                during which the applicants were officials of the
                                                                               European Parliament), the cost of the sea passage from
Community       trade    mark    Word mark ‘DigiFilmMaker’, ap-                Brindisi to various Greek frontier points (Corfu, Igoume-
sought:                          plication no 2 467 017                        nitsa, Patras) on the basis of an ‘aircraft type seat’ ticket;
                                                                          —    annul all the applicants' pay slips implementing the
                                                                               decisions annulment of which is sought;
Goods or services:               Goods and services in Classes 9          —    reimburse to the applicants all the amounts not paid
                                 (storage media etc.) and 42                   following implementation of the decisions annulment of
                                 (creating photographs etc.)                   which is sought, together with legal interest;


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel, Mons, by judgment of that court of 28 June 1996 in the case of Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v. E. Amelynck and Others (Case C-237/96)

text:
No C 269/ 12             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                      14 . 9 . 96
Communities on 9 July 1996 by the Commission of the                       competent authorities of a Member State are to have the
European Communities, represented by Gotz zur Hausen ,                    same force in other Member States as findings of the
Legal Adviser to the Commission of the European                           competent authorities of each of those Member States ?
Communities, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz, of the Legal Service of            (>) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 1 .
the Commission, Wagner Centre C 254 , Kirchberg .                         ( 2 ) OJ No L 38 , 9 . 2 . 1977 , p . 20 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
— declare that, by failing within the prescribed period to
       adopt the measures necessary in order to comply with
       Council Directive 91 / 157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on
       batteries and accumulators containing certain                      Action brought on 10 July 1996 by Ireland against the
       dangerous substances (') and Commission Directive                             Commission of the European Communities
       93/86/EEC ( 2 ) of 4 October 1993 adapting the                                                 Case C-238/96 )
       aforementioned Council Directive to technical progress,                                         96/C 269/27 )
       the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its
       obligations under the EC Treaty,
                                                                          An action against the Commission of the European
— order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                        Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
       costs .                                                            European Communities on 10 July 1996 by Ireland,
                                                                          represented by Michael A. Buckley, Chief State Solicitor, of
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       Dublin Castle, Dublin 2 , acting as Agent of Ireland, assisted
                                                                          by Mary Finlay, Senior Counsel and David Barniville,
                                                                          Barrister-at-Law, with an address for service of documents
The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5             in Luxembourg at the Embassy of Ireland , 28 route d'Arlon,
of the EC Treaty is such as to oblige Member States to whom               Luxembourg.
directives are addressed to adopt the measures necessary for
the implementation of such directives within the time limits              The applicant claims that the Court should :
prescribed therein . The time limits in question expired on
 18 September 1992 and 31 December 1993 respectively but                  — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
the Federal Republic of Germany has not to date adopted                         establishing the European Community, that
the necessary transposition measures .                                          Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
(') OJ No L 78 , 26 . 3 . 1991 , p . 38 .                                       respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
 ( 2 ) OJ No L 264 , 23 . 10 . 1993 , p . 51 .                                  of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
                                                                                Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1 993 ( 1 ) is
                                                                                void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
                                                                                26 222 656,62 ( being 10 % of the expenditure declared
                                                                                by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1990 ) from the
                                                                                expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d'Appel,                       beef for 1992,
Mons, by judgment of that court of 28 June 1 996 in the case
 of Ministre des Finances du Royaume de Belgique v.                        — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
                      E. Amelynck and Others                                    establishing the European Community, that
                           ( Case C-237/96 )                                     Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
                                                                                the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
                             ( 96/C 269/26 )
                                                                                respect of expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section
                                                                                of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
 European Communities by a judgment of the Cour d'Appel                         void in so far as it purports to disallow a sum of £ Irl
  ( Court of Appeal ), Mons, of 28 June 1996 , which was                         24 020 455,64 ( being 5 % of the expenditure declared
  received at the Court Registry on 9 July 1996 , for a                          by Ireland for public storage of beef for 1991 ) from the
 preliminary ruling in the case of Ministre des Finances du                      expenditure declared by Ireland for public storage of
  Royaume de Belgique v. E. Amelynck and Others on the                           beef for 1992 ,
  following question :
                                                                           — declare, pursuant to Article 173 of the Treaty
  Are Regulations ( EEC ) No 222/77 (') and ( EEC )                              establishing the European Community, that
  No 223/77 ( 2 ), which lay down the rule that evidence of the                  Commission Decision 96/31 1 /EC of 10 April 1996 on
  Community nature of goods is, without exception , to be                        the clearance of accounts presented by Member States in
  furnished solely by transit document T2 or T2 L, consistent                    respect of expenditure for 1 992 of the Guarantee Section
  with Articles 9 and 10 of the EC Treaty and are they                           of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee
  compatible with Articles 37 ( 2 ) and 39 ( 2 ) of Regulation                   Fund and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993 is
  ( EEC ) No 222/77, which provide that the findings of the                      void in so far as it purports to disallow the sum of £ Irl


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 October 2003 in Case C-91/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale Spedition GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (Community Customs Code — Customs debt on importation — Charging of interest on arrears)

text:
29.11.2003                EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 289/7
                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                       JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Second Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                         of 16 October 2003
                                                                                of 16 October 2003
in Case C-91/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof): Hannl + Hofstetter
Internationale Spedition GmbH v Finanzlandesdirektion                         in Case C-182/02 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from
        für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgenland (1)                         the Conseil d’État): Ligue pour la protection des oiseaux
                                                                              and Others v Premier ministre, Ministre de l’Aménage-
                                                                              ment du territoire et de l’Environnement, interveners:
(Community Customs Code — Customs debt on importation
                                                                              Union nationale des fédérations départementales de chas-
                — Charging of interest on arrears)
                                                                              seurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
                                                                                d’eau (1)
                           (2003/C 289/12)
                     (Language of the case: German)                           (Directive 79/409/EEC — Conservation of wild birds —
                                                                                Opening and closing dates for hunting — Derogations)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/13)
In Case C-91/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234 EC                                       (Language of the case: French)
by the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) for a preliminary
ruling in the proceedings pending before that court between
Hannl + Hofstetter Internationale Spedition GmbH and Fi-                      (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
nanzlandesdirektion für Wien, Niederösterreich und Burgen-                                        in the European Court Reports)
land, on the interpretation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 establishing the Community
Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1), and Commission
Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down                        In Case C-182/02: Reference to the Court under Article 234
provisions for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92                    EC by the Conseil d’État (France) for a preliminary ruling in
(OJ 1993 L 253, p. 1), the Court (Second Chamber), composed                   the proceedings pending before that court between Ligue pour
of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber,                      la protection des oiseaux and Others and Premier ministre,
V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges, Advocate General: P. Léger,               Ministre de l’Aménagement du territoire et de l’Environnement,
Registrar: R. Grass, has given a judgment on 16 October 2003,                 interveners: Union nationale des fédérations départementales
in which it has ruled:                                                        de chasseurs, Association nationale des chasseurs de gibier
                                                                              d’eau, on the interpretation of Article 9(1)(c) of Council
Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992                        Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of
establishing the Community Customs Code and Commission Regu-                  wild birds (OJ 1979 L 103, p. 1), the Court (Sixth Chamber),
lation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions                 composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,
for the implementation of Regulation No 2913/92 must be                       R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur), V. Skouris and
interpreted as not precluding legislation which provides for an increase      N. Colneric, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate Gen-
in duty in the event of the incurrence of a customs debt under                eral; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment
Articles 202 to 205 or 210 or 211 of the Customs Code or in the               on 16 October 2003, in which it has ruled:
event of subsequent recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code,
corresponding to the amount which would have been incurred as
interest on arrears for the period between the incurrence of the customs      1.    Article 9(1)(c) of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April
debt and the entry in the accounts or, in the case of subsequent                    1979 on the conservation of wild birds permits a Member
recovery under Article 220 of the Customs Code, between the date                    State to derogate from the opening and closing dates for
when the customs debt originally entered in the accounts was due and                hunting which follow from consideration of the objectives set
the subsequent entry in the accounts of that debt, provided that the                out in Article 7(4) of that directive.
rate of interest is determined under conditions which are comparable
to those applicable under national law to infringements of the same           2.    Article 9 of Directive 79/409 must be interpreted as allowing
nature and gravity and which make the penalty effective, proportionate              hunting to be authorised pursuant to Article 9(1)(c) where:
and dissuasive. It is for the national court to determine whether the
rate of increase at issue in the main proceedings is consistent with
                                                                                —     there is no other satisfactory solution. That condition
those principles.
                                                                                would not be met, inter alia, if the sole purpose of the
                                                                                derogation authorising hunting were to extend the hunting
(1) OJ C 144 of 15.6.2002.                                                                periods for certain species of birds in territories which they
                                                                                already frequent during the hunting periods fixed in
                                                                                accordance with Article 7 of Directive 79/409;


title: Case C-307/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren

text:
               27.7.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 215/12

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Helsingborgs tingsrätt (Sweden) lodged on 5 June 2013 — Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg v Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren
   (Case C-307/13)
   2013/C 215/16
   Language of the case: Swedish

      Referring court

   Helsingborgs tingsrätt

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Åklagarkammaren i Helsingborg

      Defendants: Lars Ivansson, Carl-Rudolf Palmgren, Kjell Otto Pehrsson, Håkan Rosengren

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the shortening of a timetable for implementation from 1 May 2003 to 15 April 2003, as occurred on the introduction of paragraph 9 of the Djurskyddsförordningen (2003:105), give rise to an obligation on Sweden, as a Member State, to communicate the draft regulation again in accordance with the third subparagraph of Article 8(1) of Directive 98/34/EC?

               2.

               If the answer to question I is that it should have been communicated again, what are the effects in law of the fact that that was not done?


title: Case C-23/06, Case C-24/06, Case C-25/06, Case C-26/06, Case C-27/06, Case C-28/06, Case C-29/06, Case C-30/06, Case C-31/06, Case C-32/06, Case C-33/06, Case C-34/06, Case C-35/06, Case C-36/06: References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre by judgments of that court of  5 January 2006  in — Société Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Societe des Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffay (SAFBA) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucreries de Toury et usines annexes SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — SAS Sucrerie du Littoral Groupe S.D.H.F v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — SAS Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects — Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects

text:
               25.3.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 74/6

         References for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre by judgments of that court of 5 January 2006 in
   Société Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Societe des Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffay (SAFBA) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucreries de Toury et usines annexes SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   SAS Sucrerie du Littoral Groupe S.D.H.F v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   SAS Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects
   (Case C-23/06 - Case C-24/06 - Case C-25/06 - Case C-26/06 - Case C-27/06 - Case C-28/06 - Case C-29/06 - Case C-30/06 - Case C-31/06 - Case C-32/06 - Case C-33/06 - Case C-34/06 - Case C-35/06 - Case C-36/06)
   (2006/C 74/13)
   Language of the cases: French
   References have been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by judgments of the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre delivered on 5 January 2006, received at the Court Registry on 20 January 2006, for a preliminary ruling in the following cases:

               —

               Société Saint Louis Sucre SNC v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-23/06)

               —

               Société des Sucreries du Marquenterre SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-24/06)

               —

               SA des Sucreries de Fontaine Le Dun, Bolbec, Auffay (SAFBA) v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-25/06)

               —

               Lesaffre Frères SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-26/06)

               —

               Sucreries, Distilleries des Hauts de France v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-27/06)

               —

               Sucreries & Distilleries de Souppes — Ouvré Fils SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-28/06)

               —

               Sucreries de Toury et usines annexes SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-29/06)

               —

               Tereos v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-30/06)

               —

               SAS Sucrerie du Littoral Groupe S.D.H.F v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-31/06)

               —

               Cristal Union v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-32/06)

               —

               Sucrerie Bourdon v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-33/06)

               —

               Sucrerie de Bourgogne SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-34/06)

               —

               SAS Vermendoise Industries v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-35/06)

               —

               Sucreries et Raffineries d'Erstein SA v Directeur général des douanes et droits indirects and Receveur principal des douanes et droits indirects (Case C-36/06)

         The Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre asks the Court of Justice of the European Communities to give a ruling on the following questions:

               1.

               Is Article 6(4) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 (1) and/or Regulations (EC) Nos 1837/2002, (2) 1762/2003 (3) and 1775/2004 (4) adopted to implement it invalid in the light of Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 (5) and in the light of the principle of proportionality, in that, with regard to calculation of the production levy, it does not provide for the exclusion from the ‘exportable surplus’ of the sugar contained in processed products which are exported without export refunds?

         If the answer to this question is in the negative:

               2.

               Are Regulations (EC) Nos 1837/2002, 1762/2003 and 1775/2004 invalid in the light of Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 and Article 15 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 and of the principles of equality and proportionality, in that they lay down a production levy for sugar which is calculated on the basis of the 'average loss' per tonne exported, which does not take account of the quantities exported without refund, although these quantities exported without refund, although these quantities are included in the total used to evaluate the total loss to be financed?

      (1)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 314/2002 of 20 February 2002 laying down detailed rules for the application of the quota system in the sugar sector (OJ L 50, p. 40)

      (2)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1837/2002 of 15 October 2002 fixing the production levies and the coefficient for the additional levy in the sugar sector for the marketing year 2001/02 (OJ L 278, p. 13)

      (3)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1762/2003 of 7 October 2003 fixing the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2002/03 marketing year (OJ L 254, p. 4)

      (4)  Commission Regulation (EC) No 1775/2004 of 14 October 2004 setting the production levies in the sugar sector for the 2003/04 marketing year (OJ L 316, p. 64)

      (5)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19 June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (OJ L 178, p. 1)


title: Case F-146/12: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission (Civil Service — Officials — Pensions — Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations — Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes — Proposal to add years of pensionable service — Act not having an adverse effect — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               3.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 364/43

      Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 2 August 2016 –Mommer v Commission
      (Case F-146/12) (1)

      ((Civil Service - Officials - Pensions - Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations - Transfer to the EU pension scheme of pension rights acquired under other schemes - Proposal to add years of pensionable service - Act not having an adverse effect - Action manifestly inadmissible))
      (2016/C 364/54)
      Language of the case: French

         Parties

         Applicant: Anne Mommer (Brussels, Belgium) (represented initially by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, É. Marchal and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and subsequently by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. de Abreu Caldas, lawyers, and finally by: S. Orlandi, lawyer)

         Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: D. Martin and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and subsequently by: J. Currall and G. Gattinara, acting as Agents, and finally by: G. Gattinara, acting as Agent)

         Re:

      Application for annulment of the decision concerning the transfer of the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which decision applies the new GIPs relating to Articles 11 and 12 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of Officials.

         Operative part of the order

                  1.

                  The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

                  2.

                  Each party shall bear its own costs.

         (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 78.