title: Appeal brought on 27 December 1995 by Dieter Obst against the judgment delivered on 19 October 1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-562/93 between Dieter Obst and the Commission of the European Communities (Case C-403/95 P)

text:
No C 64/8              EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       2 . 3 . 96
The applicant claims that the Court should :                          — declare that the respondent is liable to compensate the
                                                                            appellant for all consequential material damage which
                                                                            he may suffer in the future,
— annul Articles 1 ( 2 ) and 2 to 5 of Commission
    Regulation ( EC ) No 2358/95 of 6 October 1995 ( OJ No            — award the appellant compensation on an equitable basis
    L 241 of 10 October 1995 , p. 5 ),                                      for the non-material damage suffered by him, in a
                                                                            reasonable sum exceeding ECU 2 000,
— order the Commission to pay the costs.                              — in the alternative, remit the case to the Court of First
                                                                            Instance for a re-hearing, a fresh taking of evidence and
                                                                            the delivery of a new decision,
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those
in Case C-23/95 ( 1 ). The applicant additionally pleads              — order the respondent to pay all the costs of the
breach of the principle of non-discrimination, since,                       proceedings, including the costs incurred in the
contrary to the declared objective of achieving a single                    preliminary proceedings and the costs of the appeal
market, the contested rules will consolidate the traditional                proceedings,
division of the banana market if — as here — the traditional
relations between certain traders and certain producers are           — alternatively in that regard: reserve its decision on
furthered .                                                                 costs .
                                                                      Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
H OJ No C 74, 25 . 3 . 1995 , p. 6 .
                                                                      Infringement of Community law: to the extent to which the
                                                                      appellant maintains the content of his original
                                                                      applications (2 ), he adopts the grounds of action therein as
                                                                      his pleas in law in the appeal .
                                                                      (M OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 11 .
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No C 338 , 15 . 12 . 1993 , p . 16 .
Appeal brought on 27 December 1995 by Dieter Obst
against the judgment delivered on 19 October 1995 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of
European Communities in Case T-5 62/93 between Dieter
                                                                      Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, by
 Obst and the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                      order of that court of 13 October 1995 , in the case of
                       ( Case C-403/95 P                              Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and
                            96/C 64/ 16                               others against Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                                Ireland
                                                                                ( Case C-4/96 )
An appeal against the judgment delivered on 19 October                                             96/C 64/17)
1995 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-5 62/93 between
                                                                      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Dieter Obst and the Commission of the European
                                                                      European Communities by an order of the High Court of
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the
                                                                      Justice in Northern Ireland, Queen's Bench Division, of
European Communities on 27 December 1995 by Dieter
                                                                       13 October 1995 , which was received at the Court Registry
Obst, represented by Lothar Mahlberg, Rechtsanwalt, with
                                                                      on 11 January 1996 , for a preliminary ruling in the case of
an address for service in Luxembourg care of Marianne
Moritz, 25a Rue de Schonfels, Bridel .
                                                                      Northern Ireland Fish Producers' Organisation Ltd and
                                                                      others against Department of Agriculture for Northern
                                                                      Ireland, on the following questions :
The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                       1 . Is the validity of the allocation to the United Kingdom of
                                                                             its cod and whiting quotas in Area Vila pursuant to
— set aside the judgment of the Second Chamber of the                        Article 3 of Council Regulation ( EC ) No 3362/94 of
    Court of First Instance of 19 October 1995 in Case                       20 December 1994 fixing, for certain fish stocks and
    T-562/93 ( x ) in so far as it dismisses the application and             groups of fish stocks, the total allowable catches for
    orders the appellant to bear his own costs,                              1995 and certain conditions under which they may be
                                                                             fished ( J ) dependent on whether Annex VII to the
                                                                             Council resolution of 3 November 1976 was properly
— annul the respondent's order rejecting the appellant's                     adopted ?
    application for the post in issue, of which he was notified
    by a communication of 22 March 1993 ,                              2 . If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative, was
                                                                             Annex VII properly adopted ?
— declare that the rejection of the appellant's application
    for the abovementioned permanent position is                       3 . Are the answers to questions 1 or 2 affected by the fact
    unlawful,                                                                that Annex VII is a document which is classified as secret


title: Case C-255/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA

text:
               28.8.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/16

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 15 May 2017 — Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll v Société Air France SA
   (Case C-255/17)
   (2017/C 283/22)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Amtsgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Bernhard Schloesser, Petra Noll

      Defendant: Société Air France SA

      Question referred

   In circumstances where a contract has been entered into with an operating air carrier for a journey comprising two legs, and providing for a change of aircraft by the passenger, and the first leg of the journey is subject to a significant delay, do the courts of the place of final destination have jurisdiction in respect of a claim for compensation brought against that air carrier pursuant to Regulation No 261/2004? (1)

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1.


title: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 14 December 2000 in Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Commission of the European Communities (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of operation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank guarantee — Urgency)

text:
7.4.2001                 EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 108/19
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                        ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
J. Brucher, 10 Rue de Vianden, v Commission of the European                                              INSTANCE
Communities (Agent: G. Valsesia) — application, first, for
annulment of the decision of the selection board not to                                           of 8 December 2000
admit the applicant to the written tests in open competition
COM/A/12/98 and, second, for an order requiring the defend-
                                                                            in Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof and Others v
ant to pay damages — the Court of First Instance (Second
                                                                                Commission of the European Communities
Chamber), composed of A.W.H. Meij, President, and A. Potocki
and J. Pirrung, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
28 November 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:                (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
                                                                                ation — State aid — Prima facie case — Urgency)
1.    The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded in law.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/34)
2.    The parties shall bear their own costs.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 281 of 2.10.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-237/99 R: BP Nederland vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), BP Direct vof, established at Alphen
                                                                            aan den Rijn (Netherlands), and Actomat BV, established in
                                                                            Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by M. van Empel and
                                                                            M. Smeets, of the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service
                                                                            in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Harles, Arendt &
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                            Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt, supported by the
                                                                            Kingdom of the Netherlands (Agent: M.A. Fierstra), v Com-
                        of 16 October 2000                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet and
                                                                            H.M.H. Speyart) — application for partial suspension of
in Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA v Commission                         operation of the Commission’s decision 1999/705/EC of
               of the European Communities (1)                              20 July 1999 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands
                                                                            for 633 Dutch service stations located near the German border
                    (Disclaimer of jurisdiction)                            (OJ 1999 L 280, p. 87) — the President of the Court of First
                                                                            Instance made an order on 8 December 2000, the operative
                          (2001/C 108/33)                                   part of which is as follows:
                                                                            1.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                    (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                            2.   The costs are reserved.
In Case T-195/99: SIM 2 Multimedia SpA, established at
Pordenone (Italy), represented by Alessio Vianello, of the
Venice Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Elvinger, Hoss & Prussen, 15 Côte d’Eich, v
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: G. Rozet,
A. Abate and E. Cappelli) — application for annulment of
the Commission’s decision C(1999) 1524 of 2 June 1999                       ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
concerning State aid granted by the Italian Government to                                                INSTANCE
Seleco SpA, inasmuch as it considers the applicant to be jointly
and severally liable to repay that part of the aid which has not                                 of 14 December 2000
been recovered from Seleco — the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf,                 in Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging
President, and A. Potocki, A.W.H. Meij, M. Vilaras and                      voor de Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied v Com-
N.J. Forwood, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on                            mission of the European Communities
16 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:
1.    The Court of First Instance declines jurisdiction in Case             (Proceedings for interim measures — Suspension of oper-
      T-195/99 SIM 2 Multimedia v Commission in favour of the               ation — Competition — Payment of a fine — Bank
      Court of Justice, in order that the latter Court may rule on the                           guarantee — Urgency)
      application for annulment.
                                                                                (2001/C 108/35)
2.    The costs are reserved.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                            In Case T-5/00 R: Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
                                                                            Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied, established in The
 ---pagebreak--- C 108/20               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                         7.4.2001
Hague, represented by E.H. Pijnacker Hordijk, of the Amster-               1.    The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
dam Bar, S.B. Noë, of the Hague Bar, and M.S.H. de Ranitz, of
the Amsterdam Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg               2.    The applicants are to pay the costs.
at the Chambers of M. Loesch, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission
of the European Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application
for partial suspension of operation of the Commission’s                    (1) OJ C 149 of 27.5.2000.
decision 2000/117/EC of 26 October 1999 concerning a
proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (Case
IV/33.884 — Nederlandse Federatieve Vereniging voor de
Groothandel op Elektrotechnisch Gebied and Technische Unie
(FEG and TU)) (OJ 2000 L 39, p. 1) — the President of the
Court of First Instance made an order on 14 December 2000,
the operative part of which is as follows:
                                                                           ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST
1.   CEF City Electrical Factors BV and CEF Holdings Ltd are                                            INSTANCE
     granted leave to intervene in support of the form of order sought
     by the defendant in the proceedings for interim measures.
                                                                                of 31 October 2000
2.   The application for interim measures is dismissed.
                                                                           in Case T-76/00 R: Bruno Farmaceutici SpA v Commission
                                                                                of the European Communities
3.   The costs are reserved.
                                                                           (Proceedings for interim relief — Withdrawal of marketing
                                                                           authorisation for medicinal products for human use contain-
                                                                           ing amfepramone — Directive 75/319/EEC — Urgency —
                                                                                Need to balance interests)
                                                                                (2001/C 108/37)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
                       of 19 October 2000
                                                                           In Case T-76/00 R: Bruno Farmaceuti SpA, established in
                                                                           Rome, Essential Nutrition Ltd, established in Brough (United
in Case T-58/00: Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigin-                    Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel Ltd, established in
gen and Others v Commission of the European Communi-                       Uxbridge (United Kingdom), Hoechst Marion Roussel SA,
                               ties (1)                                    established in Brussels, Marion Merrell SA, established in
                                                                           Puteaux (France), Marion Merrell SA, established in Barcelona
                                                                           (Spain), Sanova Pharma GmbH, established in Vienna, Temm-
(Action for annulment — Commission Regulation (EC)                         ler Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, established in Marburg (Germ-
              No 2790/1999 — Inadmissibility)                              any), represented by B. Sträter, Rechtsanwalt, Bonn, Germany,
                                                                           with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                         (2001/C 108/36)                                   Bonn and Schmidt, 7 Val Sainte-Croix, against the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities (Agents: H. Støvlbæk and
                                                                           B. Wägenbaur) — application for the suspension of application
                                                                           of the decision of the Commission of 9 March 2000 concern-
                   (Language of the case: Dutch)                           ing the withdrawal of authorisations for placing on the market
                                                                           medicinal products for human consumption containing
In Case T-58/00: Bond van de Fegarbel-Beroepsverenigingen,                 amfepramone (C(2000) 453) — the President of the Court of
established in Brussels, Jules Appeltants, residing at Grâce-              First Instance made an order on 31 October 2000, the
Hollogne (Belgium), and Benny Corbeels, residing at Louvain                operative part of which is as follows:
(Belgium), represented by J. Van Hoof, of the Brussels Bar, with
an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                    1.    The application to the applicants of the decision of the
F. Brouxel, 6 Rue Zithe, v Commission of the European                            Commission of 9 March 2000 concerning the withdrawal of
Communities (Agent: W. Wils) — application for annulment of                      authorisations for placing on the market medicinal products for
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2790/1999 of 22 December                           human consumption containing amfepramone (C(2000) 453)
1999 on the application of Article 81(3) of the Treaty to                        is suspended.
categories of vertical agreements and concerted practices (OJ
1999 L 336, p. 21) — the Court of First Instance (Third                    2.    Costs are reserved.
Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, and K. Lenaerts
and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on
19 October 2000, the operative part of which is as follows:


title: Case F-97/09: Action brought on 16 November 2009 — Taillard v Parliament

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/81

         Action brought on 16 November 2009 — Taillard v Parliament
   (Case F-97/09)
   2010/C 24/156
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Christine Taillard (Thionville, France) (represented by: N. Camboine and C. Lelievre, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Parliament

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   First, annulment of the decision of the European Parliament declaring inadmissible a medical certificate certifying the applicant’s incapacity to work and the resulting decision to deduct a day’s leave. Second, compensation for the loss suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare the present action admissible;

               —

               annul the decision of the European Parliament of 15 January 2009 declaring inadmissible a medical certificate certifying an incapacity to work and the resulting decision to deduct a day’s leave and, in so far as it is necessary, the confirmatory decision of 14 August 2009;

               —

               declare the European Parliament responsible for the loss suffered by the applicant, accordingly award the applicant damages in the sum of EUR 12 000 or any other sum including a higher one to be determined by the Tribunal;

               —

               order the European Parliament to pay the costs.


title: Case T-99/03: Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza Morales against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.5.2003              EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 124/27
In its request, the Cayman Islands Government indicated that              The applicant claims that the Court should:
it entertained significant reservations about the compatibility
of certain core provisions of the draft Directive with the
fundamental principles of non-discrimination, legitimate                  —     annul the decision of the authority authorised to conclude
expectations and proportionality in EC Law and its consistency                  contracts of employment of 20 June 2002 refusing to
with the aims, purpose and wording of the Overseas Associ-                      grant the applicant the expatriation allowance;
ation Decision.
                                                                          —     annul the decision explicitly rejecting her complaint of
                                                                                13 December 2002;
In support of its conclusions, the applicant submits:
                                                                          —     order the defendant to pay the expatriation allowance to
—     That by deciding not to respond to an urgent request for                  the applicant as from 1 April 2002, deducting, in respect
      a PWP until after the proposed directive has been agreed                  of the past, whatever has been granted to her by way of
      by ECOFIN, the Commission has deliberately ensured                        foreign residence allowance on the date of the judgment
      that an effective and useful PWP cannot take place,                       to be delivered, together with default interest at the rate
      rendering the procedure under Article 7 of the above                      of 8 % per annum, with effect from the mean date
      mentioned Council Decision devoid of purpose, and has                     between 1 April 2002 and the actual date of payment;
      placed ECOFIN and the Council in a position where these
      bodies are likely to agree respectively and formally to
      adopt the proposed directive in violation of the applicant’s        —     order the defendant to pay the costs.
      right to be heard.
—     That the Commission is duty bound to consider requests
      for PWPs submitted to it by OCTs under Article 7 of the
      Overseas Association Decision. In deciding, after three             Pleas in law and main arguments
      month’s delay, not to respond to the request in question,
      and in failing to give adequate reasons for that decision,
      the Commission has both misused its decision-making
      powers under the Overseas Association Decision and                  The applicant, a member of the temporary staff who has since
      failed to respect the requirements of Article 253 EC.               become a probationary official at the Commission, submits
                                                                          that the authority authorised to conclude contracts of employ-
                                                                          ment wrongly refused to grant her the expatriation allowance
                                                                          on the ground that the European Youth Forum, for which the
( 1) OJ 2001 L 314, p. 1.
                                                                          applicant worked from April 1995 to January 2000, did not
                                                                          satisfy two of the five conditions laid down by the internal
                                                                          directive adopted in October 1994 laying down five criteria to
                                                                          be satisfied by organisations in order to be regarded as
                                                                          ‘international organisations’ for the purposes of Article 4 of
                                                                          Annex VII to the Staff Regulations.
                                                                          In support of her action, the applicant argues that, by
Action brought on 13 March 2002 by María Luisa Atienza
                                                                          refusing to grant her the expatriation allowance, the authority
Morales against the Commission of the European Com-
                                                                          authorised to conclude contracts of employment manifestly
                              munities
                                                                          misapplied and misinterpreted Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to
                                                                          the Staff Regulations, basing its decision on reasons which
                                                                          were incorrect both in fact and in law and therefore placing
                           (Case T-99/03)
                                                                          the applicant in an administrative situation which was discrimi-
                                                                          natory in relation to that of other officials who were in the
                                                                          same position but who received that allowance.
                          (2003/C 124/47)
                   (Language of the case: French)                         In addition, she relies on infringement of Article 69 of the
                                                                          Staff Regulations and failure to have proper regard to general
                                                                          principles of law, such as those requiring the appointing
                                                                          authority to observe equal treatment as between officials and
                                                                          to base any decision which it takes only on legally valid
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                          reasons.
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 13 March 2003 by María Luisa
Atienza Morales, residing in Brussels, represented by Eric
Boigelot, lawyer.


title: Case C-483/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2008 — Régie Communale Autonome du Stade Luc Varenne v Belgian State — SPF Finances

text:
               24.1.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 19/16

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons (Belgium) lodged on 11 November 2008 — Régie Communale Autonome du Stade Luc Varenne v Belgian State — SPF Finances
   (Case C-483/08)
   (2009/C 19/27)
   Language of the case: French
   Referring court
   Tribunal de Première Instance de Mons
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Régie Communale Autonome du Stade Luc Varenne

      Defendant: Belgian State — SPF Finances
   Question referred
   Does Article 10 of the Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1), preclude an interpretation of national statutory provisions and an administrative practice which consist in fixing the starting point for an action for recovery of VAT, and therefore the date from which the limitation period for that action is to be calculated, as the date on which the VAT return is lodged in which the taxable person claims a right to deduct?

      (1)  OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 15 September 1999 in Case T-11/99: Firma Léon Van Parys NV and Others v Commission of the European Communities (Agriculture - Common organisation of the markets - Bananas - Action for annulment - Persons individually concerned - Restricted group of operators - Inadmissibility)

text:
18.12.1999               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 366/27
       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                       ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                       of 30 September 1999                                                       of 15 September 1999
in Case T-182/98: UPS Europe SA v Commission of the                         in Case T-11/99: Firma Léon Van Parys NV and Others v
                     European Communities (1)                                      Commission of the European Communities (1)
(State aid — Letter from the Commission to a complainant                    (Agriculture — Common organisation of the markets —
          — Act open to challenge — Inadmissibility)                        Bananas — Action for annulment — Persons individually
                                                                            concerned — Restricted group of operators — Inadmissi-
                                                                                bility)
                           (1999/C 366/58)
                                                                                (1999/C 366/59)
                     (Language of the case: English)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
In Case T-182/98: UPS Europe SA, established in Brussels,
represented by Tom R. Ottervanger, of the Rotterdam Bar, and
Dirk Arts, of the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in              In Case T-11/99: Firma Léon Van Parys NV, established in
Luxembourg at the chambers of Loeff Claeys and Verbeke, 5                   Antwerp (Belgium), Pacific Fruit Company NV, established in
Rue Charles Martel v Commission of the European Communi-                    Antwerp, Pacific Fruchtimport GmbH, established in Hamburg
ties (Agent: James Flett) — application for the annulment of                (Germany), and Pacific Fruit Company Italy SpA, established
the Commission’s letter of 2 October 1998 (Ref. D/54021) —                  in Rome, represented by Philippe Vlaemminck, Lode Van Den
the Court (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition), compo-                    Hende and Julien Holmens, of the Ghent Bar, with an address
sed of: R.M. Moura Ramos, President, and M.R. Garcı́a-                      for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Messrs Loesch
Valdecasas, V. Tiili, P. Lindh and P. Mengozzi, Judges; H. Jung,            & Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, v Commission of the European
Registrar, has made an order on 30 September 1999, in which                 Communities (Agent: Hubert van Vliet) — application for
it:                                                                         annulment of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2362/98 of
                                                                            28 October 1998 laying down detailed rules for the implemen-
                                                                            tation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 404/93 regarding
1. dismisses the application as inadmissible;                               imports of bananas into the Community — the Court of First
                                                                            Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke, President,
                                                                            R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
2. orders the document produced as Annex 1 to the applicant’s               made an order on 15 September 1999, the operative part of
     observations on the plea of inadmissibility, lodged at the Registry    which is as follows:
     of the Court of First Instance on 18 February 1999, to be
     removed from the file in Case T-182/98;                                1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;
3. dismisses the ancillary application for the remainder;                   2. The applicants are to bear their own costs and to pay, jointly and
                                                                                severally, the costs of the Commission, including those incurred
                                                                                in the proceedings for interim measures;
4. orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one third
     of the costs incurred by the applicant;
                                                                            3. There is no need to rule on the applications to intervene made by
                                                                                the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic;
5. orders the applicant to bear two thirds of its own costs.
                                                                            4. The Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic are to bear their
                                                                                own costs in relation to the proceedings for interim measures.
(1) OJ No C 20 of 23.1.1999.
                                                                            (1) OJ C 71 of 13.3.1999.


title: Action brought on 25 June 1996 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain (Case C-214/96)

text:
24 . 8 . 96             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                     No C 247/9
Under Finnish national legislation on the taxation of energy,          The applicant claims that the Court should :
excise duty on electricity is levied in Finland on electrical
energy produced there, the amount of the duty depending on             1 . declare that, by failing to establish or communicate the
the method of production of the electricity . On electricity                  programmes for the reduction of pollution of waters as
produced by nuclear power, the excise duty charged is a                       regards the substances referred to in List II in the Annex
basic duty of 1,5 p/kWh and an additional duty of 0,9                         to Directive 76/464/EEC on pollution caused by certain
p/kWh . On electricity produced by water power, the excise                    dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic
duty charged is only an additional duty of 0,4 p/kWh . On                     environment of the Community ( '), as required by
electricity produced by other methods, for example from                       Article 7 thereof, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to
coal, excise duty is charged on the basis of the amount of                    fulfil its obligations under that Directive;
input materials used to produce the electricity . On electrical
                                                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs .
energy produced by some methods, for example in a
generator with an output below two megavolt-amperes, no
excise duty at all is charged . On imported electricity, the           The pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support are
                                                                       the same as those in Case C-20 5/96 H.
excise duty charged, regardless of the method of production
of the electricity, is a basic duty of 1,3 p/kWh and an
                                                                       (') OJ No L 129 , 18 . 5 . 1976 , p. 23 .
additional duty of 0,9 p/kWh . The excise duty on electricity
                                                                       ( 2 ) See page 7 of this Official Journal .
is thus determined with respect to imported electricity on a
different basis from that applied to electricity produced in
Finland . The levying of excise duties determined on the basis
of the method of production of the energy is founded on
environmental grounds in the drafting history of the law .
The amount of duty chargeable on imported electricity is               References for preliminary rulings by the Tribunale di
not, however, determined on the basis of the method of                 Genova by order of that court of 15 May 1996 in the cases of
production of the electricity . The excise duty chargeable on          1 ) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Banca Popolare di Novara
imported electricity is higher than the lowest excise duty             Soc. coop, arl and 2 ) Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Cassa di
chargeable on electricity produced in Finland, but lower                          Risparmio di Genova Imperia ( Carige ) SpA
than the highest excise duty chargeable on electricity                                    ( Case C-215 /96 and C-216/96 )
produced in Finland . The excise duty on imported electricity                                       96/C 247/ 18 )
is levied on the importer, whereas the excise duty relating to
electricity produced in Finland is levied on the electricity           References have been made to the Court of Justice of the
producer .                                                             European Communities by orders from the Tribunale di
                                                                       Genova ( District Court, Genoa ) of 15 May 1 996 , received at
1 . Is excise duty on electricity, determined for imported             the Court Registry on 21 June 1996 , for preliminary rulings
     electricity in the manner described above , to be regarded        in the cases of, first, Carlo Bagnasco and Others v. Banca
     as a charge having equivalent effect to a customs duty,           Popolare di Novara Soc . coop , arl and , second, Carlo
     within the meaning of Articles 9 and 12 of the EC                 Bagnasco and Others v. Cassa di Risparmio di Genova
     Treaty ?                                                          Imperia ( Carige ) SpA on the following questions :
2 . If it is not a charge having equivalent effect to a customs        1 . Whether the Norme Bancarie Uniforme ( Uniform Bank
     duty , is excise duty on electricity , determined for                    Rules ) laid down by the ABI (') for its members in
     imported electricity in the manner described above, to                   relation to contracts for the opening of current account
     be regarded as a tax which discriminates against imports                 credit facilities — since they are laid down and applied in
     from other Member States, within the meaning of                        ■ a uniform and binding manner by the banks belonging
     Article 95 of the EC Treaty ?                                            to the ABI — are compatible with Article 85 of the
                                                                              Treaty, where they make the credit facility subject to
                                                                              conditions for determination of an interest rate which is
                                                                              not previously determined and is not determinable by
                                                                              the customer, and they are liable adversely to affect trade
                                                                              between the Member States and have as their object and
                                                                              effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of
                                                                              competition within the Common Market;
Action brought on 25 June 1996 by the Commission of the
   European Communities against the Kingdom of Spain                   2 . What effects any finding of incompatibility in
                         ( Case C-2 14/96 )                                   accordance with point 1 may have on the corresponding
                           ( 96/C 247/ 17 )                                   clauses of the contracts for the opening of a current
                                                                              account credit facility , concluded ' downstream ' by
                                                                              member banks with individual customers, since , as a
An action against the Kingdom of Spain was brought before                     group , the banks belonging to the ABI may be regarded ,
the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                           within the meaning and for the purposes of Article 86 of
25 June 1996 by the Commission of the European                                the Treaty, as holding a joint dominant position in the
Communities, represented by Richard B. Wainwright and                         national credit market, whose specific application of the
Fernando Castillo de la Torre, with an address for service in                 rules in question ( in connection with determination of
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gomez de la Cruz,                          the interest payable on the loan ) is regarded as an
Wagner Centre .                                                               abuse;


title: Case C-326/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany) lodged on 6 July 2010 — Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-326/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/09
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Finanzgericht Hamburg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Gebr. Stolle GmbH & Co. KG

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does a poultry carcase come under CAP Goods List number 0207 1290 9990 (1) even if a part of the poultry that is not permitted under that product code adheres to giblets that are permitted?

               2.

               If the answer to the first question should be in the negative: when a customs office examines whether export products comply with the CAP Goods List number stated in the export declaration is a margin of error to be allowed so that a so-called ‘anomaly’ is not detrimental to a refund?

      (1)  OJ 1998 L 322, p. 31.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 April 2003 In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks — Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
C 158/22                EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                          5.7.2003
                                                       COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                              Action brought on 22 April 2003 by Antoinette Pascucci
                                                                                against Europol
                                                                                (Case T-127/03)
                         of 30 April 2003
                                                                                (2003/C 158/41)
In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02: Axions SA and                                          (Language of the case: Dutch)
Christian Belce v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
        Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
                                                                          An action against Esuropol was brought before the Court of
                                                                          First Instance of the European Communities on 22 April 2003
                                                                          by Antoinette Pascucci, represented by P. de Casparis and
(Community trade mark — Three-dimensional marks —                         M.F. Baltussen.
Brown cigar shape and gold ingot shape — Absolute grounds
for refusal — Distinctive character — Article 7(1)(b) of                  The applicant claims that the Court should:
                    Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
                                                                          1.     Set aside Europol’s dismissal on 13 January 2003 of the
                                                                                complaint lodged by the applicant against the decision of
                                                                                30 September 2002 and at the same time annul the
                          (2003/C 158/40)                                        decision of 30 September 2002;
                                                                          2.     Order Europol to extend the applicant’s contract of
                                                                                employment to 1 July 2005 under the same conditions
                   (Language of the case: German)
                                                                                as obtaining hitherto;
                                                                          3.     Order Europol to pay the costs of the present proceedings.
                                                                          Pleas in law and main arguments
In Joined Cases T-324/01 and T-110/02, Axion SA, established
in Geneva (Switzerland), Christian Belce, resident at Veyrier             The applicant has been working for the defendant since 1 July
(Switzerland), represented by C. Eckhartt, lawyer, v Office for           1999. Her contract of employment expires on 1 July 2003.
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and                     The applicant requested that her contract be extended for a
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider): Actions brought                    further four years. The defendant, however, decided to extend
against two decisions of the Third Board of Appeal of the                 her contract for only one year. The applicant has challenged
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks              that decision.
and Designs) of 26 September 2001 (Case R 599/2001-3) and
16 January 2002 (Case R 538/2001-3), relating to the                      In support of her application, the applicant first of all argues
registration as Community trade marks of a three-dimensional              that there has been an infringement of the principle that
shape representing a brown cigar (Case T-324/01) and a three-             reasons must be given.
dimensional shape representing a gold ingot (Case T-110/02),
the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
                                                                          The applicant goes on to argue that the defendant has exceeded
of: V. Tiili, President, P. Mengozzi and M. Vilaras, Judges;
                                                                          the bounds of its discretion. The defendant had adopted
D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a
                                                                          premisses, policy rules and a plan of action with a view to
judgment on 30 April 2003, in which it:
                                                                          ensuring that contracts would be extended in an unambiguous
                                                                          and transparent manner. In the applicant’s view, the defendant
                                                                          exceeded the bounds of its discretion when applying those
1.     Dismisses the applications;                                        rules.
                                                                          The applicant submits further that there has been a breach of
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.                            the duty of care and an infringement of the principle of
                                                                          equality.
                                                                          The applicant concludes by contending that the defendant has
( 1) OJ C 68, 16.3.2002 and C 131, 1.6.2002.
                                                                          misused its powers. She submits that the defendant allowed
                                                                          itself to be influenced by other, unlawful grounds when it took
                                                                          its decision.


title: Case F-55/08: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank (Staff case — Staff of the European Investment Bank — Assessment — Promotion — Sickness insurance — Repayment of medical expenses — Psychological harassment — Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials — Action for damages — Jurisdiction of the Tribunal — Admissibility)

text:
               30.1.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 24/74

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 30 November 2009 — De Nicola v European Investment Bank
   (Case F-55/08) (1)

   (Staff case - Staff of the European Investment Bank - Assessment - Promotion - Sickness insurance - Repayment of medical expenses - Psychological harassment - Duty to have regard to the welfare of officials - Action for damages - Jurisdiction of the Tribunal - Admissibility)
   2010/C 24/136
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo De Nicola (Strassen, Luxembourg) (represented by: L. Isola, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: G. Nuvoli and F. Martin, Agents, assisted by d’A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   First, annulment, in part, of the decision of the Appeals Committee concerning the assessment of the applicant for 2006 and, second, a declaration that the applicant has been the victim of psychological harassment and an order that the defendant desist from such conduct and compensate the non-material and material damage suffered.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 73.


title: Case T-221/06: Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI — Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)

text:
               30.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 237/13

         Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI — Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)
   (Case T-221/06)
   (2006/C 237/24)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties

      Applicant: Hipp & Co (Kommanditgesellschaft) (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L. (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain)
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 June 2006 (Case No R571/2005-1),

               —

               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant.

      Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘BEBIMIL’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L.

      Mark or sign cited: Community and national word mark ‘BLEMIL’ for goods in classes 5 and 29, 6 and 32 respectively.

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94. In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward the dissimilarity of the two marks with regards to the relevant consumer circles, as well as the phonetic, visual and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the contested one.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 7 May 1998 in Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura Circondariale, Trento): Epifanio Viscido, Mauro Scandella and Others and Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others v Ente Poste Italiane (Aid granted by Member States - Meaning - National law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the obligation of observing a rule of general application relating to fixed-term employment contracts)

text:
25.7.98                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/3
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Fourth Chamber)                                                      (Fifth Chamber)
                          of 7 May 1998                                                       of 12 May 1998
in Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97                           in Case C-366/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
(references for a preliminary ruling from the Pretura                  the Hùjesteret): Landbrugsministeriet Ð EF-Direktoratet v
Circondariale, Trento): Epifanio Viscido, Mauro Scandella              Steff-Houlberg Export I/S, Nowaco A/S et Nowaco
and Others and Massimiliano Terragnolo and Others v                              Holding A/S, SMC af 31/12-1989 A/S (1)
                      Ente Poste Italiane (1)
                                                                       (Community aid unduly paid Ð Recovery Ð Application
(Aid granted by Member States Ð Meaning Ð National                               of national law Ð Conditions and limits)
law providing that only one public utility is relieved of the
obligation of observing a rule of general application                                          (98/C 234/05)
         relating to fixed-term employment contracts)
                          (98/C 234/04)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Danish)
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                     In Case C-366/95: reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                       of the EC Treaty from the Hùjesteret (Supreme Court)
                                                                       (Denmark), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                       pending before that court between Landbrugsministeriet
                                                                       Ð EF-Direktoratet and Steff-Houlberg Export I/S,
In Joined Cases C-52/97, C-53/97 and C-54/97: references               Nowaco A/S et Nowaco Holding A/S, SMC af 31/12-1989
to the Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the               A/S Ð on the interpretation of Community law principles
Pretura Circondariale (District Magistrate's Court), Trento            applicable to measures taken by the national authorities
(Italy), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending           for the recovery of export refunds unduly paid Ð the
before that court between Epifanio Viscido (C-52/97),                  Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
Mauro Scandella and Others (C-53/97), Massimiliano                     President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet, J. C. Moitinho de
Terragnolo and Others (C-54/97) and Ente Poste Italiane                Almeida, P. Jann (Rapporteur) and L. Sevón, Judges; A. La
Ð on the interpretation of Articles 92(1) and 93 of the EC             Pergola, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for
Treaty Ð the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of:                      the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
H. Ragnemalm, President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray                   which it has ruled:
(Rapporteur), K. M. Ioannou, Judges; F. G. Jacobs,
Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 May 1998, in which
it has ruled:
                                                                       Community law does not in principle preclude a national
                                                                       rule from allowing non-recovery of Community aid
                                                                       unduly paid, regard being had to criteria such as
                                                                       negligence on the part of the national authorities and the
A national provision which relieves only one undertaking               fact that a considerable period of time has elapsed since
of the obligation of complying with the generally                      the payment of the aid in question, on condition that the
applicable legislation concerning fixed-term employment                good faith of the recipient is established and provided that
contracts does not constitute State aid within the meaning             the same conditions apply as for the recovery of purely
of Article 92(1) of the EC Treaty.                                     national payments and that the interests of the
                                                                       Community are fully taken into account.
(1) OJ C 108 of 5.4.1997.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 16 of 20.1.1996.


title: Case C-128/11: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp. (Legal protection of computer programs — Marketing of used licences for computer programs downloaded from the internet — Directive 2009/24/EC — Articles 4(2) and 5(1) — Exhaustion of the distribution right — Concept of lawful acquirer)

text:
               22.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 287/10

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 3 July 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp.
   (Case C-128/11) (1)

   (Legal protection of computer programs - Marketing of used licences for computer programs downloaded from the internet - Directive 2009/24/EC - Articles 4(2) and 5(1) - Exhaustion of the distribution right - Concept of lawful acquirer)
   2012/C 287/16
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: UsedSoft GmbH

      Defendant: Oracle International Corp.

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of first subparagraph of Article 4(2) and Article 5(1) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs (OJ 2009 L 111, p. 16) — Downloading of copies of computer programs from the internet with the rightholder’s consent onto a data carrier on the basis of a software licence — Whether that action can be classified as exhausting the rightholder’s distribution right with regard to the copies downloaded — Marketing of ‘used’ licences of programs downloaded by the first acquirer — Concept of ‘lawful acquirer’

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2009 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that the right of distribution of a copy of a computer program is exhausted if the copyright holder who has authorised, even free of charge, the downloading of that copy from the internet onto a data carrier has also conferred, in return for payment of a fee intended to enable him to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of the copy of the work of which he is the proprietor, a right to use that copy for an unlimited period.

               2.

               Articles 4(2) and 5(1) of Directive 2009/24 must be interpreted as meaning that, in the event of the resale of a user licence entailing the resale of a copy of a computer program downloaded from the copyright holder’s website, that licence having originally been granted by that rightholder to the first acquirer for an unlimited period in return for payment of a fee intended to enable the rightholder to obtain a remuneration corresponding to the economic value of that copy of his work, the second acquirer of the licence, as well as any subsequent acquirer of it, will be able to rely on the exhaustion of the distribution right under Article 4(2) of that directive, and hence be regarded as lawful acquirers of a copy of a computer program within the meaning of Article 5(1) of that directive and benefit from the right of reproduction provided for in that provision.

      (1)  OJ C 194, 2.7.2011.


title: Case T-448/05: Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Oxley Threads v Commission (Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European market in thread for automotive customers — Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement — Fines — Gravity of the infringement — Mitigating circumstances — Cooperation — Proportionality — Equal treatment — Guidelines on the method of setting fines)

text:
               5.6.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 148/24

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2010 — Oxley Threads v Commission
   (Case T-448/05) (1)

   (Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European market in thread for automotive customers - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Fines - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation - Proportionality - Equal treatment - Guidelines on the method of setting fines)
   2010/C 148/42
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Oxley Threads Ltd (Ashton-Under-Lyne, Lancashire, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Peretz, Barrister, M. Rees and K. Vernon, Solicitors)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Khan and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision C(2005) 3452 of 14 September 2005 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.337 — PO/Thread), as amended by Commission Decision C(2005) 3765 of 13 October 2005 and, in the alternative, for reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Oxley Threads Ltd to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 48, 25.2.2006.


               25.9.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/28

         Removal from the Register of Case T-280/99 (1)

   (2004/C 239/62)

      (Language of the case: Dutch)

   By order of 4 May 2004, the President of the Second Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the Register of Case T-280/99, Van Gelder Aardolie B.V., supported by the Kingdom of the Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 47, 19.2.2000.


title: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 16 December 1999 in Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose Directive 96/43/EC)

text:
4.3.2000                 EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 63/7
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(1) OJ C 86 of 27.3.1999.                                                                              (First Chamber)
                                                                                of 16 December 1999
                                                                           in Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to transpose Directive 96/43/EC)
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 16 December 1999                                                              (2000/C 63/13)
in Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communi-
             ties v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
(Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
Directive 94/33/EC — Failure to transpose within the                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                          prescribed period)                                                    in the European Court Reports)
                            (2000/C 63/12)                                 In Case C-137/99: Commission of the European Communities
                                                                           (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
                                                                           V. Kontolaimos and D. Tsagkaraki), application for a declar-
                     (Language of the case: French)                        ation that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                           administrative provisions necessary in order to comply with
                                                                           Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996 amending and
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to ensure financing
                    in the European Court Reports)                         of veterinary inspections and controls on live animals and
                                                                           certain animal products and amending Directives 90/675/EEC
In Case C-47/99: Commission of the European Communities                    and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1996 L 162, p. 1), the Hellenic Republic
(Agent: D. Gouloussis) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent:                 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty and
P. Steinmetz) — application for a declaration that, by failing             under that directive — the Court (First Chamber), composed
to adopt, or by failing to communicate to the Commission,                  of: L. Sevón, President of the Chamber, P. Jann (Rapporteur)
within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and adminis-            and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General;
trative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive              R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December
94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people                 1999, in which it:
at work (OJ 1994 L 216, p. 12), the Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period the
Treaty and under the said directive — the Court (Fifth                         laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
Chamber), composed of: D.A.O. Edward, President of the                         comply with the provisions referred to in the first subparagraph
Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn (Rapporteur), P. Jann and                   of Article 4(1) of Council Directive 96/43/EC of 26 June 1996
H. Ragnemalm, Judges; A. Saggio, Advocate General; R. Grass,                   amending and consolidating Directive 85/73/EEC in order to
Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 December 1999, in                        ensure financing of veterinary inspections and controls on live
which it:                                                                      animals and certain animal products and amending Directives
                                                                               90/675/EEC and 91/496/EEC, the Hellenic Republic has failed
1. Declares that, by failing to adopt within the prescribed period all         to fulfil its obligations under that article;
     the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
     comply with Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on
     the protection of young people at work, the Grand Duchy of            2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;
     Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that
     directive;                                                            3. Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.
(1) OJ C 100 of 10.4.1999.


title: Case C-359/15 P: Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by The National Iranian Gas Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-9/13 The National Iranian Gas Company v Council

text:
               7.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/47

         Appeal brought on 13 July 2015 by The National Iranian Gas Company against the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of 29 April 2015 in Case T-9/13 The National Iranian Gas Company v Council

   (Case C-359/15 P)
   (2015/C 294/58)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Appellant: The National Iranian Gas Company (represented by: E. Rosenfeld and S. Perrotet, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (First Chamber) of the European Union in Case T-9/13, notified to the appellant on 5 May 2015, in which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment brought by the National Iranian Gas Company in that case and ordered it to pay the entire costs of the proceedings;

               —

               grant the form of order sought by the appellant at first instance;

               —

               order the respondent to pay the costs of the two sets of proceedings.

      Grounds of appeal and main arguments

   The appellant relies on eight grounds in support of its appeal.
   By its first ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 82 of its judgment, that Decision 2012/635 (1) had been taken by the Council pursuant to Article 29 TEU and by drawing the conclusion, in paragraph 84, that that decision did not have to be subject to the requirements laid down in Article 215(2) TFEU. The General Court, it submits, also erred in law by holding, in paragraph 90 of its judgment, that the Council was correct to provide for implementing powers pursuant to the provisions of Article 291(2) TFEU. In addition, the Council also erred in law by finding that the conditions laid down for relying on Article 291(1) TFEU had been satisfied. Article 215 TFEU, it argues, is the only procedure applicable to restrictive measures. Article 291(2) TFEU could not therefore be applied since that article is applicable only to measures necessitating implementing measures. Measures for the freezing of funds are, however, in essence, implementing measures. Such measures cannot therefore fall within the substantive scope of application of Article 291(2) TFEU. Furthermore, the conditions laid down for recourse to Article 291(2) TFEU are not satisfied because the Council did not, in the contested decisions, properly justify its reliance on that procedure.
   By its second ground of appeal, the appellant also claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that Article 20(1)(c) of Decision 2010/413 (2), as amended by Decision 2012/35 (3), Decision 2012/635 and Article 23(2)(d) of Regulation No 267/2012 (4), did not contravene the principles of legal certainty and predictability, proportionality and the right to property. The criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance referred to in paragraph 61 of the General Court’s judgment is not mentioned in the contested acts. The General Court thus artificially created it in order to uphold the contested acts. In addition, that criterion is in itself vague, imprecise and disproportionate. The General Court therefore erred in law in finding that the fact that the appellant had transferred a contribution to the Iranian State constituted support within the meaning of the contested acts.
   By its third ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 116 and 117 of its judgment in holding that the contested acts were sufficiently reasoned, whereas the General Court itself recognised in paragraph 115 of that judgment that the contested acts did not take account of the extent and the detailed arrangements of the support attributed to the appellant. Furthermore, the appellant was unable, on a reading of the contested acts, to understand the reasons for which it had been sanctioned, a fact which points to an inadequacy in the reasoning.
   By its fourth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding, in paragraph 141 of its judgment, that the failure to re-examine the position of the appellant within the prescribed period was not capable of rendering unlawful its maintenance on the list of sanctioned entities despite the fact that that obligation is one which is strictly objective.
   By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in finding that the contested decisions did not infringe the appellant’s fundamental rights and were not disproportionate notwithstanding the fact that those contested decisions were vague and imprecise. Similarly, the criterion of quantitative and qualitative significance laid down by the General Court was inherently arbitrary.
   By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in paragraphs 163 and 164 of its judgment in finding that the appellant was supporting the Iranian Government on the ground that it had transferred a mandatory contribution despite the fact that that contribution was merely a tax and that the appellant was in the same situation as any ordinary taxpayer.
   By its seventh ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court failed to find that the Council had contravened the principle of non-discrimination by sanctioning the appellant for having transferred a contribution to the Iranian State, without sanctioning all of the undertakings which were subject to that contribution.
   By its final ground of appeal, the appellant claims that the General Court erred in law by substituting grounds in paragraph 159 of its judgment.

      (1)  Council Decision 2012/635/CFSP of 15 October 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 282, p. 58).

      (2)  Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39).

      (3)  Council Decision 2012/35/CFSP of 23 January 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2012 L 19, p. 22).

      (4)  Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1).


title: Case T-212/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission

text:
               22.11.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/62

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 11 September 2008 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-212/05) (1)

   (2008/C 301/108)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 193, 6.8.2005.


title: Case C-658/13: Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Wilhelm Spitzner, Maria-Luise Spitzner v TUIfly GmbH

text:
               11.8.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/20

         Order of the President of the Court of 13 May 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Hannover — Germany) — Wilhelm Spitzner, Maria-Luise Spitzner v TUIfly GmbH
   (Case C-658/13) (1)

   2014/C 261/39
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 85, 22.3.2014.


title: Case F-66/15: Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee

text:
               29.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 213/50

         Action brought on 24 April 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v European Economic and Social Committee
   (Case F-66/15)
   (2015/C 213/80)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Economic and Social Committee

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Application for the annulment of the decisions reducing the correction coefficient applicable to the pension of the applicants, who live in Denmark, as shown on their pension statements for the month of June 2014, and for compensation in respect of the non-material loss alleged to have been suffered as a result of the varying and contradictory information given to justify the contested decisions.

      Form of order sought

   The applicants submit that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Annul the decisions contained in the pension statements for June 2014 in accordance with which the weighting applicable to the applicants’ pension is reduced with effect from 1 January 2014;

               —

               Order the EECS to pay the costs and to pay a sum to be assessed on equitable principles in compensation for the non-material loss caused.


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato by order of that court of 9 January 1996 in the case of Regione Piemonte v. Sai Agricola SpA (Case C-164/96)

text:
No C 197/ 14             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       6 . 7. 96
2. If not, what are the consequences of invalidity for the                      terminal operator) gives rise to arrangements in the
      charging of customs duty in early May 1992 on wines                       market whereby users may have contractual
      originating in Serbia which were imported in the period                   relationships only with the terminal operator for the
      from mid-November 1991 to April 1992 and cleared for                      whole range of services which they need when visiting a
      warehousing in a customs warehouse ?                                      port in which the terminal operator or operators hold a
                                                                                dominant position in the market within the meaning of
      Are the quota-related preferential customs duties                         Article 86 of the Treaty ?
      granted in 1992 for wines from the territory of the
      former Yugoslavia other than Serbia applicable in that              3 . Do Articles 59 and 90 of the EC Treaty, in conjunction
      respect ?                                                                 with Article 86, in any event preclude national
                                                                                legislation which only allows an undertaking operating
                                                                                in a port to provide to other undertaking operating in
( ] ) OJ No L 315 , 15 . 11 . 1991 , p . 1 .
                                                                                the port, and in particular terminal operators, services
                                                                                limited to the mere supply of labour ?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Pretura
Circondariale di la Spezia by order of that court of 12 April             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Consiglio di Stato
1996 in the criminal proceedings pending before it against                by order of that court of 9 January 1996 in the case of
                      Silvano Raso and Others                                          Regione Piemonte v. Sai Agricola SpA
                           ( Case C-163/96 )                                                         (Case C-164/96)
                             ( 96/C 197/27 )                                                           ( 96/C 197/28 )
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Pretura                           European Communities by an order of the Consiglio di
Circondariale di la Spezia ( Magistrates' Court for the                   Stato ( Council of State ), of 9 January 1996, which was
District of La Spezia ) of 12 April 1996 , which was received             received at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a
at the Court Registry on 13 May 1996, for a preliminary                   preliminary ruling in the case of Regione Piemonte v. Sai
ruling in the criminal proceedings pending before that court              Agricola SpA on the following question:
against Silvano Raso and Others on the following
questions :                                                               Whether, under Council Directive 72/159/EEC ( 1 ) and the
                                                                          subsequent Council Regulation No 797/85 (2 ) and having
1 . Does Article 5 9 of the Treaty preclude Italian legislation           regard to the aim of developing a common agricultural
      which prohibits an undertaking holding a port terminal              policy within a system free of discrimination between
      concession from having recourse to work done by other               farmers, there is room for the national or regional legislator
      undertakings — not set up by former port companies                  to provide for different treatment of individual farmers,
      and groups — comprising the supply of services of the               even if only in relation to the introduction of a special system
      kind provided for users including those belonging to                of identification based on a specific register set up solely for
      other Member States, with the further implication that,             that purpose ?
      as a result of the Italian legislation, the terminal operator
      itself is required to make available the whole range of             (*) OJ No English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 324 .
      services that might be required by users in the port                ( 2 ) OJ No L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 .
      terminal, giving rise to the risk of hampering access to
      the market for the provision of individual services by
      undertakings authorized to operate in the port other
      than those referred to by Article 21 ( 1 ) ( b) of Law
      No 84/94 ?
2. Does Article 90 ( 1 ) of the EC Treaty, in conjunction with
      Article 86 , preclude national legislation which (by                Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Royal Court of
      reason of its effects on the market, namely, first, the fact        Jersey, by order of that court of 1 1 April 1996, in the case of
      that it prevents undertakings other than the terminal —             Rui Alberto Pereira Roque against His Excellency the
      not set up by former port companies and groups — from                                Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
      providing services within the confines of the port for                                         (Case C-171/96)
      would-be users; secondly, the fact that the terminal                                             ( 96/C 197/29 )
      operator is obliged to provide all port operations and
      services required at the terminal; and, thirdly, the fact
      that it is impossible for users to entrust certain services         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      to undertakings of their oWn choice other than the                  European Communities by an order of the Royal Court of


title: Case C-498/99: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of that court of 16 December 1999, in the case of Town and County Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise

text:
19.2.2000             EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 47/25
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                             (a) the amount of the entry fees, or
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             (b) the amount of the entry fees less the amount or value
                                                                                of the prizes given to the successful entrants, or
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex              (c) some other and if so what amount?
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   Alternatively, if those services are correctly to be regarded
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             as supplied by the organiser to each entrant in return for
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    the entry fee paid by that entrant, is the taxable amount in
the Commission. That period expired on 1 January 1998                       respect of each such supply —
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                          (a) the amount of that entry fee, or
(1) OJ No L 77, 27.3.1996, p. 20.                                           (b) the amount of that entry fee less a proportionate part
                                                                                of the amount or value of the prizes given to the
                                                                                successful entrants, or
                                                                            (c) some other and if so what amount?
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre, by direction of                 (1) First Council Directive 67/227/EEC of 11 April 1967 on the
that court of 16 December 1999, in the case of Town and                    harmonization of legislation of Member States concerning turn-
County Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs                        over taxes (OJ 71, 14.04.67, p. 1301 [SE SER1 67, p. 14]).
                                                                        2
                                                                       ( ) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                           and Excise
                                                                           harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                           turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax : uniform
                        (Case C-498/99)                                    basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.06.77, p. 1).
                         (2000/C 47/42)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by direction of the VAT and Duties
Tribunals, Manchester Tribunal Centre of 16 December 1999,
which was received at the Court Registry on 22 December
1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Town and County
Factors Ltd against Commissioners of Customs and Excise, on
the following questions:                                               Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de
                                                                       Grande Instance, Grenoble, France, by judgment of that
(1) On a proper interpretation of Council Directives                   court of 15 November 1999 in the case of Procureur de la
    67/227/EEC (1) of 11 April 1967 and 77/388/EEC (2) of              République and Féderation Départementale des Chasseurs
    17 May 1977, in particular Articles 2.1 and 6.1 of the             de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-Alpes de
    latter, and having regard to the case law of the Court,            Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère (claiming
    in particular Tolsma v Inspecteur der Omzetbelasting                                   damages) v Xavier Tridon
    Leeuwarden (Case C-16/93) [1994] ECR I-743, is a trans-
    action which is agreed by the parties thereto to be ‘binding
    in honour only’ (and therefore unenforceable under dom-                                      (Case C-510/99)
    estic law by legal proceedings) capable of being a taxable
    transaction for the purposes of value added tax?                                              (2000/C 47/43)
(2) If the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, then, on
    a proper interpretation of the said Directives, in particular      Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    Article 11A.1 of the latter, and having regard to the case         European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de
    law of the Court, in particular H J Glawe Spiel- und               Grande Instance (Regional Court), Grenoble, France, of
    Unterhaltungsgeräte Aufstellungsgesellschaft mbH & Co              15 November 1999, which was received at the Court Registry
    KG v Finanzamt Hamburg-Barmbek-Uhlenhorst (Case                    on 28 December 1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
    C-38/93) [1994] ECR I-1679, is the taxable amount for              Procureur de la République and Fédération Départementale
    the purposes of value added tax in respect of the services         des Chasseurs de L’Isère (claiming damages), Fédération Rhône-
    of organising a competition supplied by the organiser to           Alpes de Protection de la Nature (FRAPNA) Section Isère
    entrants to the competition in return for the entry fees           (claiming damages) v Xavier Tridon, on the following ques-
    paid by the entrants —                                             tions: