title: Case T-407/07: Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — CMB and Christof v Commission (Public supply contracts — EAR procurement procedure — Supply of equipment for the treatment of medical waste — Rejection of the tender — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the General Court — Period allowed for commencing proceedings — Preliminary administrative complaint — Excusable error — Award criteria — Procedural rules — Obligation to state reasons — Principle of sound administration — Non-contractual liability)

text:
               22.10.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 311/34

         Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2011 — CMB and Christof v Commission
   (Case T-407/07) (1)

   (Public supply contracts - EAR procurement procedure - Supply of equipment for the treatment of medical waste - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the General Court - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - Preliminary administrative complaint - Excusable error - Award criteria - Procedural rules - Obligation to state reasons - Principle of sound administration - Non-contractual liability)
   2011/C 311/60
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH (Gratkorn, Austria) and J. Christof GmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented initially by A. Petsche, N. Niejahr, lawyers, F. Young, Solicitor, and Q. Azau, lawyer, and subsequently by A. Petsche, N. Niejahr and Q. Azau)

      Defendant: European Commission, as the legal successor of the European Agency for Reconstruction (EAR) (represented by: P. van Nuffel, F. Erlbacher and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   First, annulment of the decision of the European Agency for Reconstruction of 29 August 2007, rejecting the tender made by the applicants in response to an invitation to tender EuropeAid/124192/D/SUP/YU concerning the supply of equipment for medical waste management (OJ 2006 S 233 248826) and awarding the contract to another tenderer, and, second, application for damages

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders CMB Maschinenbau & Handels GmbH and J. Christof GmbH to bear their own costs and those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 8, 12.1.2008.


title: Case C-379/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Società Immobiliare Al Bosco srl

text:
               25.9.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 318/6

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Società Immobiliare Al Bosco srl
   (Case C-379/17)
   (2017/C 318/09)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Bundesgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Società Immobiliare Al Bosco srl

      Question referred

   Is it compatible with Article 38(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (1) to apply a time limit which is laid down in the law of the State in which enforcement is sought, and on the basis of which an instrument may no longer be enforced after the expiry of a particular period, also to a functionally comparable instrument issued in another Member State and recognised and declared enforceable in the State in which enforcement is sought?

      (1)  OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1.


title: Case C-147/07: Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC — Quality of water intended for human consumption — Maximum concentrations of nitrates and pesticides — Incorrect application)

text:
               29.3.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 79/8

         Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 31 January 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v French Republic
   (Case C-147/07) (1)

   (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directives 80/778/EEC and 98/83/EC - Quality of water intended for human consumption - Maximum concentrations of nitrates and pesticides - Incorrect application)
   (2008/C 79/14)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: S. Pardo Quintillán, J. Hottiaux and J.-B. Laignelot, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: French Republic (represented by: G. de Bergues and S. Gasri, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to adopt, within the prescribed period, the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption (OJ 1998 L 330, p. 32) — Failure, in certain départements, to remain within the chemical parameters laid down in Annex I, Part B to Directive 98/83 — Nitrates and pesticides
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to take the measures necessary to comply with Article 4 of Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water intended for human consumption, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 95, 28.4.2007.


title: Case C-52/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)

text:
               28.4.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/17

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Marknadsdomstolen (Sweden) lodged on 6 February 2007 — Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag v Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)
   (Case C-52/07)
   (2007/C 95/28)
   Language of the case: Swedish
   Referring court
   Marknadsdomstolen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Kanal 5 Limited and TV 4 Aktiebolag

      Defendant: Föreningen Svenska Tonsättares Internationella Musikbyrå (STIM)
   Questions referred

               A.

               Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright management organisation which has a de facto monopoly position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect of commercial television channels a remuneration model for the right to make available music in television broadcasts directed at the general public which involves the remuneration being calculated as a proportion of the television channels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the general public?

               B.

               Is Article 82 EC to be interpreted as meaning that a practice constitutes abuse of a dominant position where a copyright management organisation which has a de facto monopoly position in a Member State applies to or imposes in respect of commercial television channels a remuneration model for the right to make available music in television broadcasts directed at the general public which involves the remuneration being calculated as a proportion of the television channels' revenue from such television broadcasts directed at the general public, where there is no clear link between the revenue and what the copyright management organisation makes available, that is, authorisation to perform copyright-protected music, as is often the case with, for example, news and sports broadcasts and where revenue increases as a result of development of programme charts, investments in technology and customised solutions?

               C.

               Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that it is possible to identify and quantify both the music performed and viewing?

               D.

               Is the answer to Question A or B affected by the fact that the remuneration model (revenue model) is not applied in a similar manner in respect of a public service company?


title: Case C-403/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 20 October 2009 — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia

text:
               19.12.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 312/24

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Višje sodišče v Mariboru (Republic of Slovenia) lodged on 20 October 2009 — Jasna Detiček v Maurizio Sgueglia
   (Case C-403/09)
   2009/C 312/39
   Language of the case: Slovene

      Referring court

   Višje sodišče v Mariboru

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Jasna Detiček

      Defendant: Maurizio Sgueglia

      Questions referred for a preliminary ruling

               1.

               Does a court of the Republic of Slovenia (a Member State of the European Communities) have jurisdiction under Article 20 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 (1) to take protective measures in a situation in which a court of another Member State, having by virtue of that regulation jurisdiction as to the substance, has already taken a protective measure declared enforceable in the Republic of Slovenia?

         If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative:

               2.

               May a Slovene court, pursuant to national law (as permitted by Article 20 of the regulation), take a protective measure under Article 20 of the regulation amending or rendering inoperative a final and enforceable protective measure taken by a court of another Member State which under that regulation has jurisdiction as to the substance?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1).


title: ORDER OF THE COURT (First Chamber) of 21 January 1997 in Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors of the European Communities (Appeal - Officials - Obligations - Acts incompatible with the dignity of the official's office - Duty of loyalty - Disciplinary proceedings - Removal from post)

text:
22 . 3 . 97            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                  No C 94/3
      92/42/EEC of 21 May 1992 on efficiency requirements              Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Sozialgericht
     for new hot-water boilers fired with liquid or gaseous            Hamburg by order of that court of 31 July 1996 in the
     fuels, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its            case of Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse
      obligations under Article 9 (1 ) of that Directive;              Hamburg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit)
                                                                                Case C-414/96)
2 . orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.                                                ( 97/C 94/06 )
(') OJ No C 247, 24 . 8 . 1996 .
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by an order of the 22nd Chamber
                                                                       of the Sozialgericht ( Social Court) Hamburg of 31 July
                                                                       1996, which was received at the Court Registry on
                                                                       30 December 1996, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                       Mechthild Kehrl v. Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Ham
                   ORDER OF THE COURT                                  burg (interested third party: Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit) on
                         (First Chamber)
                                                                       the following questions :
                      of 21 January 1997                               ( a ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
in Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors                     employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
               of the European Communities (')                               compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
(Appeal — Officials — Obligations — Acts incompatible                        of Directive 79/7/EEC ( J ), if disproportionately more
with the dignity of the official's office — Duty of loyalty                  women than men are affected by that exclusion;
     — Disciplinary proceedings — Removal from post)
                           ( 97/C 94/05 )                              ( b ) Does the exclusion of male and female workers
                                                                             employed for less than 18 hours a week from the
                 (Language of the case: French)                              compulsory statutory unemployment insurance scheme
                                                                             constitute indirect discrimination contrary to Article 4
                                                                             of Directive 79/7/EEC, if a worker has several
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be               employment contracts which together amount to
           published in the European Court Reports)                          more than 90 % of full-time employment, and if
                                                                             disproportionately more women than men are affected
                                                                             by that exclusion ?
In Case C-156/96 P: Calvin Williams, a former official of
the Court of Auditors of the European Communities,                     (') OJ No L 6 , 10 . 1 . 1979 , p. 24 .
residing in Luxembourg, represented by Eric Boigelot, of
the Brussels Bar, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 rue du
Fort Rheinsheim — appeal against the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities
( Fifth Chamber ) of 7 March 1996 in Case T-146/94
Calvin Williams v. Court of Auditors [ 1996] ECR-SC II                Action brought on 30 December 1996 by the Kingdom
329, seeking to have that judgment set aside — the other               of Spain against the Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities
party to the proceedings being: Court of Auditors of the
European Communities, represented by Jean-Marie                                                   Case C-415/96 )
Stenier, Jan Inghelram and Paolo Giusta, of the Legal                                              ( 97/C 94/07)
Service, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
Luxembourg at the seat of the Court of Auditors, 12 rue
Alcide de Gasperi, Kirchberg — the Court ( First                       An action against the Commission of the European
Chamber), composed of: L. Sevon, President of the                      Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
Chamber, P. Jann ( Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges;                the European Communities on 30 December 1996 by the
A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar,                  Kingdom of Spain, represented by Luis Perez de Ayala Be
made an order on 21 January 1997, the operative part of                cerril, Abogado del Estado, of the State Legal Department
which is as follows :
                                                                       dealing with matters before the Court of Justice, acting as
                                                                       Agent, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
1 . the appeal is dismissed;                                           Spanish Embassy, 4—6 Boulevard E. Servais.
                                                                       The applicant claims that the Court should:
2 . the appellant is ordered to pay the costs.
W OJ No C 180 , 22 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                       1 . declare null and void the decision adopted by the
                                                                             Commission of the European Communities on
                                                                             18 September 1996 amending Decision 317/92/EEC (*)
                                                                             of 25 March 1992;


title: Case C-520/07 P: Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities

text:
               26.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/34

         Appeal brought on 22 November 2007 by the Commission of the European Communities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended Composition) delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-520/07 P)
   (2008/C 22/62)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Appellant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Gross, B. Martenczuk)

      Other party to the proceedings: MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the contested judgment of the Court of First Instance delivered on 12 September 2007 in Case T-196/02 MTU Friedrichshafen GmbH v Commission of the European Communities,

               —

               give a final decision in the case and dismiss the application as unfounded;

               —

               order the applicant in the main proceedings to pay the costs of these appeal proceedings as well as the costs of the proceedings at first instance in Case T-196/02.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Court of First Instance erred in assuming that it was not possible to make a decision on the basis of the available information for the purpose of establishing the actual beneficiary of the aid. Establishing the actual beneficiary is normally an integral part of Commission decisions ordering recovery of unlawful aid. Making this determination is indeed necessary to ensure efficient recovery of unlawful aid. Excluding the possibility of establishing the actual beneficiary of aid on the basis of the available information is thus not compatible with Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 659/1999.
   Secondly, the Court was wrong to assume that the Commission decision was based on a mere presumption which did not meet the requirements of a decision on the basis of the available information. On the one hand, where a decision is made on the basis of the information available no absolute certainty is required. On the other, the Commission decision was based on the information sent by SKL-M's insolvency administrator as to the development costs of the know-how. The Commission thus had sufficient evidence to allow it to conclude that the transfer of the know-how to MTU represented an advantage for that undertaking.


title: Case T-549/08: Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Luxembourg v Commission (ESF — Suspension of financial aid — Campaign against discrimination and inequality in the employment market — Serious failings in the system of management and monitoring which could lead to systemic irregularities — Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 — Legitimate expectations)

text:
               31.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 209/37

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 June 2010 — Luxembourg v Commission
   (Case T-549/08) (1)

   (ESF - Suspension of financial aid - Campaign against discrimination and inequality in the employment market - Serious failings in the system of management and monitoring which could lead to systemic irregularities - Article 39(2)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Legitimate expectations)
   2010/C 209/55
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (represented by: M. Fisch, acting as Agent, and P. Kinsch, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Steiblytė and B. Conte, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2008) 5383 of 24 September 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the European Social Fund (ESF) to the single programming document for Community structural interventions falling under Objective No 3 to Luxembourg, and Commission Decision C(2008) 5730 of 6 October 2008 on the suspension of interim payments from the Community initiative to combat discrimination and inequality in the employment market (EQUAL) to Luxembourg.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 44, 21.2.2009.


title: Case C-477/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2007 — N.V. Gerlach & Co v Belgische Staat

text:
               12.1.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 8/6

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) lodged on 29 October 2007 — N.V. Gerlach & Co v Belgische Staat
   (Case C-477/07)
   (2008/C 8/11)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hof van beroep te Antwerpen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: N.V. Gerlach & Co

      Defendant: Belgische Staat
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 221(1) of the Community Customs Code (established by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 (1); hereinafter ‘the customs code’) the entry in the accounts referred to in Article 217 of the customs code, which consists in the amount of duty being entered by the customs authorities in the accounting records or on any other equivalent medium, and is that entry in the accounts to be distinguished from the inclusion of the amount of duty in the accounts for own resources as referred to in Article 6 of Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom) No 1552/89 of 29 May 1989 implementing Decision 88/376/EEC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (2) (now Article 6 of Council Regulation 1150/2000 (EC, Euratom) of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom on the system of the Communities' own resources (3))?

               2.

               Is Article 221(1) of the customs code to be understood to mean that notification of the amount of duty by the customs authorities to the debtor in accordance with appropriate procedures can be regarded as the communication of the amount of duty to the debtor as referred to in Article 221(1) of the customs code only if the amount of duty has previously been entered in the accounts by the customs authorities?

               3.

               Is Article 221(1) of the customs code to be understood to mean that, if the debtor is notified of the amount of duty by the customs authorities in accordance with appropriate procedures but without the amount of duty being entered in the accounts prior to the customs authorities' notification, payment of the amount of duty cannot be demanded, as a consequence of which, in order to obtain payment of the amount of duty, the customs authorities must again notify the debtor of the amount of duty in accordance with appropriate procedures after the amount of duty has been entered in the accounts and provided that the entry in the accounts occurs within the applicable limitation period?

      (1)  Regulation establishing the Community Customs Code OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ 1989 L 155, p. 1.

      (3)  OJ 2000 L 130, p. 1.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 September 1998 in Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European Communities (Competition - Remail - Action for annulment - Partial rejection of a complaint - Community interest)

text:
24.10.98              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 327/19
lists every third time the end of a rota is reached in respect      Chamber, Extended Composition), composed of: B.
of cases covered by the first indent of paragraph 2(c), or          Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and
every sixth time the end of the rota is reached in respect          J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio GonzaÂlez, Administrator,
of cases covered by paragraph 2(a) and the second and               for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
third indents of paragraph 2(c).                                    1998, in which it:
The President of the Court of First Instance may derogate           1. Declares that the case need not proceed to judgment;
from that order on the ground that cases are related or
with a view to ensuring an even spread of the workload.
                                                                    2. Orders each party to bear its own costs.
Plenary session
                                                                    (1) OJ C 119, 13.5.1995.
At its meeting on 21 September 1998, the Court of First
Instance decided pursuant to the second subparagraph of
Article 32(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of
First Instance that where, following the designation of an
Advocate General pursuant to Article 17 of the Rules of
Procedure, there is an even number of Judges in the Court
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
of First Instance sitting in plenary session, the rota
established in advance in accordance with which the                                      of 16 September 1998
President of the Court is to designate the Judge who will
not take part in the judgment of the case shall be in               in Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
reverse order to that in which the Judges rank according            Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European
to their seniority in office under Article 6 of the Rules of                                Communities (1)
Procedure unless the Judge who would thus be designated
                                                                    (Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
is the Judge-Rapporteur. In that event, it shall be the Judge
                                                                       Partial rejection of a complaint Ð Community interest)
ranking immediately above him who shall be designated.
                                                                                (98/C 327/33)
                                                                                (Language of the case: English)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                           In Case T-110/95: International Express Carriers
                    of 16 September 1998                            Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva
                                                                    (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of
in Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and
Conference (IECC) v Commission of the European                      Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                       Communities (1)                              the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,
(Competition Ð Action for a declaration of failure to act           against Commission of the European Communities
       Ð No need for the case to proceed to judgment)               (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and
                                                                    Rosemary Caudwell, subsequently Rosemary Caudwell,
                        (98/C 327/32)                               Fabiola Mascardi and Nicholas Forwood), supported by
                                                                    United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
                                                                    (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during the oral procedure,
                (Language of the case: English)                     also Nicholas Green), La Poste, represented by HerveÂ
                                                                    Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an
                                                                    address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
In Case T-28/95: International Express Carriers                     Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, and The Post Office,
Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in Geneva                represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the Supreme
(Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de Rivery, of            Court of England and Wales, and, during the oral
the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the Brussels and             procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,
Paris Bars, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue Guillaume,                  the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe Ð
against Commission of the European Communities                      application for the annulment of the Commission decision
(Agents: initially Francisco Enrique GonzaÂlez-Díaz and             of 17 February 1995 definitively rejecting that part of the
Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently Rosemary                        complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988
Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi) Ð application for a                  denouncing a price-fixing agreement concluded in October
declaration that, in failing to define its position on the          1987 by a number of public postal operators Ð the Court
applicant's complaint based on Articles 85 and 86 of the            of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended Composition),
EC Treaty (IV/32.791 Ð Remail), the Commission has                  composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P. BrieÈt, P.
failed to act Ð the Court of First Instance (Third                  Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; J. Palacio
 ---pagebreak--- C 327/20              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 24.10.98
GonzaÂlez, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a            of 6 April 1995 and 14 August 1995, by which the
judgment on 16 September 1998, in which it:                         Commission definitively rejected that part of the
                                                                    complaint filed by the applicant on 13 July 1988 against
                                                                    the interception, pursuant to Article 25 of the Universal
1. Dismisses the action for annulment as unfounded;                 Postal Union Convention, by a number of public postal
                                                                    operators, of mail which had been the subject of remailing
                                                                    Ð the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber, Extended
2. Orders the applicant to bear its own costs, as well as           Composition), composed of: B. Vesterdorf, President, C. P.
    those of the Commission and La Poste;                           BrieÈt, P. Lindh, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; H.
                                                                    Jung, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September
                                                                    1998, in which it:
3. Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
    Northern Ireland and the Post Office to bear their
    own costs.                                                      1. Joins Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95 for the purposes of
                                                                         the judgment;
(1) OJ C 189, 22.7.1995.
                                                                    2. Annuls the decision of 6 April 1995 in so far as it
                                                                         concerns commercial physical ABA remail;
                                                                    3. Dismisses the remainder of the actions;
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                    of 16 September 1998                            4. Orders the Commission to bear the applicant's costs in
                                                                         Case T-133/95;
in Joined Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International
Express Carriers Conference (IECC) v Commission of the
                  European Communities (1)                          5. Orders the applicant to bear the Commission's costs in
                                                                         Case T-204/95;
(Competition Ð Remail Ð Action for annulment Ð
               Partial rejection of a complaint)
                         (98/C 327/34)                              6. Orders the interveners to bear their own costs in Cases
                                                                         T-133/95 and T-204/95.
               (Language of the case: English)                      (1) OJ C 229, 2.9.1995 and C 351, 30.12.1995.
In Cases T-133/95 and T-204/95: International Express
Carriers Conference (IECC), having its headquarters in
Geneva (Switzerland), represented by EÂric Morgan de
Rivery, of the Paris Bar, and Jacques Derenne, of the
Brussels and Paris Bars, with an address for service in
                                                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Luxembourg at the Chambers of Alex Schmitt, 62 Avenue
Guillaume, against Commission of the European                                           of 15 September 1998
Communities (Agents: initially Francisco Enrique
GonzaÂlez-Díaz and Rosemary Caudwell, and subsequently              in Case T-3/96: Roland Haas and Others v Commission
Rosemary Caudwell and Fabiola Mascardi, assisted by                                of the European Communities (1)
Nicholas Forwood QC), supported, in Cases T-133/95 and              (Officials Ð Proportion of remuneration transferred Ð
T-204/95, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and                 Weighting Ð Adjustment of capital sum Ð Retroactivity)
Northern Ireland (Agents: Stephanie Ridley, and, during
the oral procedure, also Nicholas Green QC), Deutsche                                       (98/C 327/35)
Post AG, represented by Dirk Schroeder, Rechtsanwalt,
Cologne, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and The                               (Language of the case: French)
Post Office, represented by Ulick Bourke, Solicitor of the
Supreme Court of England and Wales, and, during the
oral procedure, also by Stuart Isaacs and Sarah Moore,              In Case T-3/96: Roland Haas, Hans-Werner Schmidt,
Barristers, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Siegfried Schweikle, Albert Veith and Horst Wohlfeil,
the Chambers of Loesch and Wolter, 11 Rue Goethe, and,              officials of the Commission of the European Communities,
in Case T-133/95, by La Poste, represented by HerveÂ                residing in Luxembourg, represented by Georges
Lehman and Sylvain Rieuneau, of the Paris Bar, with an              Vandersanden and Laure Levi, of the Brussels Bar, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of                address for service in Luxembourg at the offices of the
Aloyse May, 31 Grand-Rue, Ð applications for, in                    Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de Cessange, against
substance, the annulment of the Commission decisions                Commission of the European Communities (Agent:


title: Case F-81/09: Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission (Civil service — Officials — Invalidity allowance — Error in the calculation — Payment of arrears — Default interest due — Rate applicable — Annual capitalisation Material and non-material damage)

text:
               26.3.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 95/13

         Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 15 February 2011 — Marcuccio v Commission
   (Case F-81/09) (1)

   (Civil service - Officials - Invalidity allowance - Error in the calculation - Payment of arrears - Default interest due - Rate applicable - Annual capitalisation Material and non-material damage)
   2011/C 95/20
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, agents, and A. Dal Ferro, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision rejecting in part the applicant’s request for default interest in respect of the payment of the invalidity allowance awarded to him.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Tribunal:

               1.

               dismisses the action;

               2.

               orders the Commission, in addition to bearing its own costs, to pay one quarter of the costs incurred by Mr Marcuccio

               3.

               orders Mr Marcuccio to bear three-quarters of his own costs..

      (1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.09, p. 44.


title: Case C-282/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2013 — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission

text:
               7.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 260/21

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 24 May 2013 — T-Mobile Austria GmbH v Telekom-Control-Kommission
   (Case C-282/13)
   2013/C 260/35
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: T-Mobile Austria GmbH

      Respondent authority: Telekom-Control-Kommission

      Interveners: Hutchison 3 G Austria Holdings GmbH, Hutchison 3G Austria GmbH, Orange Austria Telecommunication GmbH, Stubai SCA, Orange Belgium SA, A1 Telekom Austria AG

      Additional party: Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technolgie

      Question referred

   Are Articles 4 and 9b of Directive 2002/21/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) and Article 5(6) of Directive 2002/20/EC (2) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) to be interpreted as meaning that they confer on a competitor the status, in a national procedure under Article 5(6) of the Authorisation Directive, of an undertaking which is affected within the meaning of Article 4(1) of the Framework Directive?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

      (2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 21, amended by Directive 2009/140/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2009 L 337, p. 37).


title: Case C-12/15: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)) — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Judicial cooperation in civil matters — Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 — Special jurisdiction — Article 5(3) — Tort, delict or quasi-delict — Harmful event — Lawyer’s negligence in drafting the contract — Place where the harmful event occurred)

text:
               22.8.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 305/7

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 June 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands)) — Universal Music International Holding BV v Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož
   (Case C-12/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Judicial cooperation in civil matters - Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Special jurisdiction - Article 5(3) - Tort, delict or quasi-delict - Harmful event - Lawyer’s negligence in drafting the contract - Place where the harmful event occurred))
   (2016/C 305/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Universal Music International Holding BV

      Defendants: Michael Tétreault Schilling, Irwin Schwartz, Josef Brož

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that, in a situation such as that in the main proceedings, the ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ may not be construed as being, failing any other connecting factors, the place in a Member State where the damage occurred, when that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which materialises directly in the applicant’s bank account and is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State.

               2.

               In the context of the determination of jurisdiction under Regulation No 44/2001, the court seised must assess all the evidence available to it, including, where appropriate, the arguments put forward by the defendant.

      (1)  OJ C 89, 16.3.2015.


title: Action brought on 14 September 1998 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-338/98)

text:
C 340/10               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                        7.11.98
and not, as the French authorities maintain, by resolution          latter provision states that the invoice must be issued by a
of the Intercommunal Public Transport Board of                      taxable person to another taxable person and that it must
26 October 1989, that is to say before even Council                 relate to goods or services supplied by him to that other
Directive 90/531/EEC of 17 September 1990 on the                    person. The Netherlands rules at issue in the present case
procurement procedures of entities operating in the water,          do not refer to any such invoice.
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors (2)
entered into force.
                                                                    The economic considerations expounded by the
                                                                    Netherlands Government are not wholly without merit.
(1) OJ L 199 of 9.8.1993, p. 84.                                    However, they cannot result in the conclusion that the
(2) OJ L 297 of 29.10.1990, p. 1.
                                                                    legislation is to be interpreted in a manner contrary to its
                                                                    manifest provisions. Ratio legis non est lex.
                                                                    (1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                        harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
                                                                        turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:
Action brought on 14 September 1998 by the Commission                   uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                           Netherlands
                        (Case C-338/98)
                          (98/C 340/16)
                                                                    Action brought on 17 September 1998 by Italian Republic
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was                            against Council of the European Union
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                                         (Case C-340/98)
Communities on 14 September 1998 by the Commission
of the European Communities, represented by Emile                                             (98/C 340/17)
Mennens and Enrico Traversa, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg at the office of Carlos
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union was
Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,
                                                                    brought before the Court of Justice of the European
Kirchberg.
                                                                    Communities on 17 September 1998 by the Italian
                                                                    Republic, represented by Professor Umberto Leanza,
The applicant claims that the Court should:                         acting as Agent, assisted by Ivo Braguglia, Avvocato dello
                                                                    Stato, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Ð declare that, by providing, contrary to Articles 17(2)(a)         Italian Embassy, 5 rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde.
    and 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive 77/388/
    EEC (1), that an employer subject to VAT may deduct             The applicant claims that the Court should:
    part of the expenses reimbursed to an employee for
    the use of a private motor vehicle for business
    purposes, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed             Ð annul Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1361/
    to fulfil its obligations under the EC Treaty;                       98 (1) in so far as it does not fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar for all areas of Italy
                                                                         for the sugar-marketing year 1998/99; in addition, if
Ð order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                        need be, annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation (EC)
    costs.                                                               No 1360/98 (2) in so far as it fixes the intervention
                                                                         price for Italy also;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                    Ð order the Council of the European Union to pay the
The rule at issue, which is laid down in Article 23                      costs of the proceedings.
of the Netherlands Uitvoeringsbesluit Omzetbelasting
(Implementing Regulation concerning Turnover Taxes)                 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
1968, is contrary to a fundamental aspect of the Sixth
VAT Directive, since it permits the deduction of cost
elements other than the VAT charged at the previous stage           For the marketing year 1998/99 both the intervention
by a taxable person to the taxable person making the                price and the derived intervention prices were fixed by
deduction.                                                          Regulations (EC) No 1360/98 and (EC) No 1361/98,
                                                                    which entered into force on 1 July 1998.
That fundamental incompatibility between the system
operating in the Netherlands and the Sixth VAT Directive            By so doing, the Council acted in contravention of the
is complemented by an incompatibility as regards formal             provisions contained in Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic
requirements. Article 18(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive           Regulation (EEC) No 1785/81 (3), since it fixed the
provides that, in order to exercise his right to deduct, the        intervention prices (including the derived intervention
taxable person must, prior to making the deduction, hold            prices) in June 1998, whereas it should have fixed them by
an invoice drawn up in accordance with Article 22(3); the           August 1997.


title: Case T-90/07 P: Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 March 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v Commission

text:
               26.5.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 117/29

         Appeal brought on 26 March 2007 by the Kingdom of Belgium against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 16 March 2007 in Case F-92/05, Genette v Commission

   (Case T-90/07 P)
   (2007/C 117/46)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Appellant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by L. Van den Broeck, Agent)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Emmanuel Genette, Commission of the European Communities
   Form of order sought by the appellant

               —

               annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   By judgment of 16 January 2007 in Case F-92/05 Genette v Commission, the Civil Service Tribunal upheld the action brought by Mr Genette concerning the annulment of the decision of the Commission of 25 January 2005 refusing, first, to authorise him to withdraw his application for the transfer of his pension rights acquired under Belgian pension schemes, brought in 2001 and, second, to authorise him to ask for a new transfer.
   In support of its appeal, the Kingdom of Belgium, as intervener at first instance in support of the forms of order sought by the Commission, asserts at the outset that the Civil Service Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to assess the admissibility under Belgian law of a application to withdraw an application for the transfer to the Community system of pension rights acquired in Belgian pension schemes. According to the appellant, the Civil Service Tribunal acted ultra vires in ruling on the significance of provisions of Belgian national law which may be applicable in the present case.
   Secondly, the Kingdom of Belgium asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal breached Community law, and in particular the provisions of the Staff Regulations, in its assessment of the admissibility of the introduction of a new transfer application.
   Moreover, the Kingdom of Belgium asserts that the Civil Service Tribunal breached Community law by its erroneous assessment of the existence of a new fact which, according to the Kingdom of Belgium, should not be assessed in relation to the entry into force of the reform of the Staff Regulations, but in the light of the provisions of Belgian law.
   Finally, the Kingdom of Belgium relies on a plea in law alleging breach of the principle of legal certainty.


title: Case T-200/11: Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Al Matri v Council (Common foreign and security policy — Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia — Freezing of funds — No legal basis)

text:
               3.8.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 225/69

         Judgment of the General Court of 28 May 2013 — Al Matri v Council
   (Case T-200/11) (1)

   (Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia - Freezing of funds - No legal basis)
   2013/C 225/152
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: M. Lester, Barrister, and G. Martin, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and I. Gurov, Agents)

      Interveners in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bordes and M. Konstantinidis, Agents); and Republic of Tunisia (represented by: W. Bourdon, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment, first, of Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 40); secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia (OJ 2011 L 31, p. 1); and, thirdly, of Council Decision 2012/50/CFSP of 27 January 2012 amending Decision 2011/72 (OJ 2012 L 27, p. 11), in so far as they apply to the applicant.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls Council Implementing Decision 2011/79/CFSP of 4 February 2011 implementing Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia and Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011 of 4 February 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Tunisia, in so far as they concern Mr Fahed Mohamed Sakher Al Matri;

               2.

               Declares that the effects of Implementing Decision 2011/79 with respect to Mr Al Matri shall be maintained until the annulment of Regulation No 101/2011 takes effect in so far as it concerns Mr Al Matri;

               3.

               Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the remainder of the action;

               4.

               Orders the Council of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr Al Matri;

               5.

               Orders the European Commission and the Republic of Tunisia to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 160, 28.5.2011.


title: Case T-331/06: Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA (Public service contracts — EEA tendering procedure — Provision of information technology consultancy services — Rejection of the tender — Action for annulment — Jurisdiction of the Court — Award criteria set out in the tender specifications — Sub-criteria — Manifest error of assessment — Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)

text:
               28.8.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 234/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 8 July 2010 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v EEA
   (Case T-331/06) (1)

   (Public service contracts - EEA tendering procedure - Provision of information technology consultancy services - Rejection of the tender - Action for annulment - Jurisdiction of the Court - Award criteria set out in the tender specifications - Sub-criteria - Manifest error of assessment - Obligation to state the reasons on which a decision is based)
   2010/C 234/52
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis and N. Keramidas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency (EEA) (represented by: M. Hofstötter, Agent, and J. Stuyck, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action for annulment of the decision of the EEA of 14 September 2006 to reject the tender submitted by the applicant in tendering procedure EEA/IDS/06/002 relating to the provision of information technology consultancy services (OJ 2006 S 118-125101) and to award the public contract to other tenderers

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 326, 30.12.2006.


title: Case T-621/15: Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/44

         Action brought on 9 November 2015 — Tractel Greifzug v OHIM — Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery (Shape of a motorised rope winch)
   (Case T-621/15)
   (2016/C 016/52)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tractel Greifzug GmbH (Bergisch Gladbach, Germany) (represented by: U. Lüken and C. Maierhöfer, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jiangsu Shenxi Construction Machinery Co. Ltd (Wuxi, China)

      Details of the proceedings before OHIM

      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

      Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a motorised rope winch) — Community trade mark No 7 033 061

      Procedure before OHIM: Invalidity proceedings

      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 September 2015 in Case R 1658/2014-1

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the contested decision and reject the application for a declaration of invalidity in its entirety;

               —

               order OHIM to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case T-11/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014  — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark MEGO — Relative ground for refusal — Earlier opposition proceedings — No application of the principle of res judicata)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/13

         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2014 — Tegometall International v OHIM — Irega (MEGO)
   (Case T-11/13) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark MEGO - Relative ground for refusal - Earlier opposition proceedings - No application of the principle of res judicata))
   2014/C 388/15
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Tegmotall International AG (Lengwil, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Timmann and E. Schaper, lawyers)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Walicka, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Irega AG (Zuchwil, Switzerland)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1), concerning invalidity proceedings between Tegometall International AG and Irega AG.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 October 2012 (Case R 1522/2011-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Tegometall International AG before the General Court as well as the Board of Appeal.

      (1)  OJ C 55, 23.2.2013.


title: Case T-245/09: Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Shell Hellas v Commission

text:
               15.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 193/29

         Action brought on 24 June 2009 — Shell Hellas v Commission
   (Case T-245/09)
   2009/C 193/47
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Shell Hellas Oil and Chemical SA (Shell Hellas AE) (Attica, Greece) (represented by: P. Hubert, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul, in its entirety or in part, the implied negative response of the Commission of 16 April 2009 to the request for access to documents held by the Commission (reference GESTDEM 6159/2008) and draw all the appropriate conclusions therefrom with regard to the applicant’s access to the documents requested;

               —

               In the alternative, should the Court consider it a decision, annul, in its entirety or in part, the letter of 15 April 2009 from the Secretariat General of the Commission stating that it is not possible to reply to the applicant’s request for access to the Commission documents (reference GESTEDEM 6159/2008) and draw all the appropriate conclusions therefrom with regard to the applicant’s access to the documents requested;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay all the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the implied decision of the Commission refusing it access to all the correspondence, relating to the enquiry on the fuel market, between the Commission and the Greek competition authority under Article 11(4) of Regulation No 1/2003. In the alternative, should the Court consider it an express decision of refusal, the applicant seeks annulment of the letter of the Secretariat General which states that the Commission is not in a position to reply to the request made by the applicant for access to the documents.
   In support of its claim, the applicant raises three pleas in law.
   By the first plea, alleging breach of Article 523 EC, the applicant submits that, since the refusal was implied, the defendant has not, by the very nature of the decision, given reasons which would have enabled the applicant to know why the request was refused.
   By the second plea, raised in the alternative, should the Court consider either that the letter of the Secretariat General of the Commission is the decision capable of challenge or that the fresh letter of the Secretariat General of 18 June 2009 gives the true reasons for the implied decision, the applicant submits that the reasons given do not meet the requirements of Article 253 EC and contravene both the letter and the spirit of Regulation No 1049/2001. (1)

   By the third plea, alleging breach of Article 255 EC and of Regulation No 1049/2001, the applicant submits that the documents to which access was requested do not fall within the scope of the exceptions to the principle of openness laid down by Regulation No 1049/2001. In that regard, the applicant submits that:

               —

               the Commission has not undertaken a document by document analysis but has made a general assessment of the exceptions under the Regulation on the basis of the categories of documents;

               —

               the Commission could not directly consult the Greek competition authority on the basis of Article 4(5) of Regulation No 1049/2001 to obtain its view on disclosure of the documents, since Member States alone are empowered to refuse disclosure of documents on that basis;

               —

               the Commission was incorrect in relying on the exception relating to the protection of commercial interests (first indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001) in order to refuse disclosure of the documents in their entirety when it was in a position to purge the documents of confidential information;

               —

               the Commission could not rely on the exception relating to investigatory activities (third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001) since the Greek competition authority had already adopted its final decision in the matter in question;

               —

               nor could it rely on the exception relating to protection of the decision-making process, either because the documents to which access was requested do not form part of a decision-making process or because that process would not be seriously undermined.

         Finally, the applicant submits that, in any event, there is an overriding public interest in obtaining disclosure of the documents in question, namely, that of effectively enabling uniform application of Community law.

      (1)  Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, p. 43).


title: Case C-155/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17 March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/33

         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) by order of that court dated 17 March 2004, in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd against 1) Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales
   (Case C-155/04)
   (2004/C 118/62)
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by an order of the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) dated 17 March 2004, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 March 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of The Queen on the application of 1) National Association of Health Stores 2) Health Food Manufacturers Ltd and 1) Secretary of State for Health 2) National Assembly for Wales on questions which are identical to those in Case C-154/04 (1).

      (1)  See page 34 of this Official Journal.


title: Case C-372/14: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 1 August 2014  — Provident Financial s.r.o. v Zdeněk Sobotka

text:
               27.10.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 380/2

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Krajský súd v Prešove (Slovakia) lodged on 1 August 2014 — Provident Financial s.r.o. v Zdeněk Sobotka
   (Case C-372/14)
   2014/C 380/02
   Language of the case: Slovak

      Referring court

   Krajský súd v Prešove

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Provident Financial s.r.o.

      Defendant: Zdeněk Sobotka

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Directive 2005/29/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the provider of the consumer credit consisting in presenting contractual terms to the consumer so as to create the formal impression that it is possible to choose an additional service of ensuring repayment instalments of the credit, and in reality exerting unreasonable influence on the consumer to accept the additional service, is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice?

               2.

               Must the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the creditor consisting in presenting contractual terms to the consumer in such a way as to provide the consumer with a statement of the annual percentage rate of charge (APR) which does not include the costs of an additional service is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice?

               3.

               Must the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive be interpreted as meaning that conduct of the creditor consisting, in the consumer credit market, in requiring from consumers a substantially higher price for an ancillary service than the actual costs of such an ancillary service is to be regarded as an unfair commercial practice, and is the requirement of transparency of the total cost of a consumer credit thus circumvented if the costs of the ancillary service are not part of the APR?

               4.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC (2) of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (‘Directive 93/13/EEC’) be interpreted as meaning that a service of ensuring the repayment of a consumer credit, the object of which is the cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit by the consumer, constitutes the main object of performance in the case of a consumer credit?

               5.

               Must Council Directive 87/102/EEC (3) of 22 December 1986 for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit, as amended and supplemented by Directive 98/7/EC (4) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998, be interpreted as meaning that the APR includes also a payment for cash acceptance of repayment instalments of the credit, or part of it, if the payment substantially exceeds the unavoidable costs of that ancillary service, and must Article 14 of that directive be interpreted as meaning that it is a circumvention of the concept of APR if the payment for an ancillary service substantially exceeds the costs of the ancillary service and the payment is not included in the APR?

               6.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that it suffices, to satisfy the requirement of transparency of an ancillary service for which an administrative charge is paid, that the price of that administrative service (the administrative charge) is clear and comprehensible, even if the object of performance of that administrative service is not defined?

               7.

               Must Article 4(1) and (2) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the mere fact that an administrative charge is included in the calculation of the APR precludes the court from exercising a power of review of such an administrative charge for the purposes of that directive?

               8.

               Must Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that the mere amount of the administrative charge precludes review by the court for the purposes of that directive?

               9.

               If the answer to Question 6 is that the object of the administrative service for which the administrative charge is to be paid is sufficiently transparent, in such a case does the administration, with all possible administrative work and functions coming into consideration, constitute the principal object of the consumer credit?

               10.

               Must Article 4(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts be interpreted as meaning that, for the purpose of that directive, it is relevant inter alia that in return for the charge for the ancillary service the consumer receives performance which is predominantly not in his interest but in the interest of the creditor of the consumer credit?

      (1)  OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22.

      (2)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

      (3)  OJ 1987 L 42, p. 48.

      (4)  OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17.


title: Case C-166/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/11

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Büdingen (Germany) lodged on 18 April 2008 — Criminal proceedings against Guido Weber
   (Case C-166/08)
   (2008/C 183/21)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Amtsgericht Büdingen
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Prosecutor: Staatsanwaltschaft b.d. LG Gießen

      Defendant: Guido Weber
   Question referred
   Is the second sentence of Article 7(1) of Council Directive 89/397/EEC of 14 June 1989 on the official control of foodstuffs (1) to be interpreted, with regard to the expression ‘those subject to inspection’, as applying not only to the manufacturer of the foodstuff but also to the person marketing it, to the extent that the latter is to be held responsible by the prosecuting authorities for the condition and labelling of the foodstuff in proceedings relating to the imposition of criminal penalties or administrative fines?

      (1)  OJ 1989 L 186, p. 23.


title: Case C-43/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Assane Samb

text:
               9.4.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 113/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano (Italy) lodged on 31 January 2011 — Criminal proceedings against Assane Samb
   (Case C-43/11)
   2011/C 113/12
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale Ordinario Di Milano

      Defendant in the criminal proceedings

   Assane Samb

      Question referred

   In the light of the principles of sincere cooperation and of the effectiveness of directives, do Articles 15 and 16 of Directive 2008/115/EC (1) preclude the possibility that a third-country national illegally staying in a Member State may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of up to four years where he fails to comply with the first order issued by the Questore and a term of imprisonment of up to five years for failure to comply with subsequent orders (with the corresponding obligation for the police authorities to arrest those engaged in the commission of this offence) simply on account of his lack of cooperation in the deportation procedure, in particular his simple failure to comply with a removal order issued by the administrative authorities?

      (1)  OJ 2008 L 348, p. 98.


title: Action brought on 5 August 1996 by the French Republic against the European Parliament (Case C-267/96)

text:
14 . 9 . 96             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                No C 269/21
     with Community law, even though neither company A,               measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to
     company B or company C is itself seeking to exercise any         them into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     rights under Community law, and even if an                       prescribed for doing so . That period expired on 30 June
     interpretation of national legislation which would               1994 without the Kingdom of Belgium having brought into
     comply with Community law would have the effect of               force the necessary measures .
     giving relief where the business of company C consisted
     mainly in the holding of shares in subsidiaries                  (') OJ No L 250 , 7. 10 . 1993 , p . 33 .
     established outside the EC/EEA ? Or does Article 5 have
                                                                      ( 2 ) OJ No L 157, 10 . 6 . 1992 , p . 10 .
     the consequence only that the national legislation,              (>) OJ No L 256 , 14 . 10 . 1993 , p . 25
     despite its interpretation, takes effect subject to the
     requirements of Community law in a case where these
     requirements are in point ?
                                                                      Action brought on 5 August 1996 by the French Republic
                                                                                against the European Parliament
Action brought on 31 July 1996 by the Commission of the                                        ( Case C-267/96 )
 European Communities against the Kingdom of Belgium
                                                                                ( 96/C 269/44 )
                          Case C-265 /96 )
                           ( 96/C 269/43 )
                                                                      An action against the European Parliament was brought
                                                                       before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Kingdom of Belgium was brought                   5 August 1 996 by the French Republic, represented by Marc
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on            Perrin de Brichambaut, Director of Legal Affairs at the
31 July 1996 by the Commission of the European                         Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and Denys Wibaux, Secretary
Communities, represented by A. X. Lewis, acting as Agent,              for Foreign Affairs at the same ministry, acting as Agents,
with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of C.          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the French
Gomez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner Centre,                 Embassy, 9 boulevard du Prince Henri .
Kirchberg.
The applicant claims that the Court should :                           The applicant claims that the Court should :
1 . declare that, by failing to bring into force the laws,             — declare null and void the decision of the European
      regulations or administrative provisions necessary to                 Parliament of 17 July 1 996 ,
      comply with :
                                                                       — order the defendant to pay the costs .
      ( a ) Commission Directive 93/64/EEC ( 1 ) of 5 July 1 993
            setting out the implementing measures concerning
            the supervision and monitoring of suppliers and            Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
            establishments pursuant to Council Directive
            92/34/EEC ( 2 ) on the marketing of fruit plant            The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
            propagating material and fruit plants intended for          Case C-345/95 of 6 November 1995 ( M.
            fruit production and/or by not notifying the
            Commission thereof;                                         (') OJ No C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 , p . 7 .
      ( b ) Commission         Directive    93/79/EEC ( 3 )      of
            21 September 1993 setting out additional
            implementing provisions for lists of varieties of fruit
            plant propagating material and fruit plants, as kept
            by suppliers under Council Directive 92/34/EEC,
                                                                              Removal from the register of Case C-327/95 (')
      the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
      obligations under Article 6 of Directive 93/64/EEC and                                       ( 96/C 269/45 )
      Article 3 of Directive 93/79/EEC and under the EC
      Treaty;                                                           By order of 3 May 1996 , the President of the Court of Justice
                                                                        of the European Communities ordered the removal from the
 2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs .                    register of Case C-327/95 : Commission of the European
                                                                        Communities v. Italian Republic .
 Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                        (') OJ No C 333 , 9 . 12 . 1995 .
 The mandatory nature of the provisions of the third
 paragraph of Article 189 and the first paragraph of Article 5
 of the EC Treaty requires Member States to adopt the


title: Case C-66/13: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas (Reference for a preliminary ruling — National support scheme for the consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources — Obligation of electricity producers and importers to feed into the national grid a certain quantity of electricity produced from renewable energy sources or, failing that, to purchase ‘green certificates’ from the competent authority — Evidence of such feeding into the grid requiring certificates to be submitted demonstrating the green origin of electricity produced or imported — Acceptance of certificates issued in a third State subject to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement between that third State and the Member State concerned or an agreement between the national grid manager and an equivalent authority of that third State — Directive 2001/77/EC — External competence of the Community — Cooperation in good faith)

text:
               26.1.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 26/4

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 26 November 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Green Network SpA v Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas
   (Case C-66/13) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - National support scheme for the consumption of electricity produced from renewable energy sources - Obligation of electricity producers and importers to feed into the national grid a certain quantity of electricity produced from renewable energy sources or, failing that, to purchase ‘green certificates’ from the competent authority - Evidence of such feeding into the grid requiring certificates to be submitted demonstrating the green origin of electricity produced or imported - Acceptance of certificates issued in a third State subject to the conclusion of a bilateral agreement between that third State and the Member State concerned or an agreement between the national grid manager and an equivalent authority of that third State - Directive 2001/77/EC - External competence of the Community - Cooperation in good faith))
   (2015/C 026/04)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Green Network SpA

      Defendant: Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas

      Intervener: Gestore dei Servizi Energetici SpA — GSE

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               On a proper construction of the EC Treaty, having regard to the provisions of Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, the European Community enjoys exclusive external competence precluding a provision of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the grant of exemption from the obligation to purchase green certificates owing to the introduction, onto the national consumer market, of electricity imported from a third State, by means of the prior conclusion, between the Member State and third State concerned, of an agreement under which the electricity thus imported is guaranteed as having been produced from renewable energy sources, according to arrangements identical to those set out in Article 5 of that directive;

               2.

               When a provision such as that referred to in paragraph 1 of the operative part of this judgment has been disapplied by a national court because it is incompatible with EU law, it is contrary to EU law for that court to apply, by way of substitution, an earlier provision of national law in substance similar to that disapplied, which provides for the grant of exemption from the obligation to purchase green certificates owing to the introduction, onto the national consumer market, of electricity imported from a third State, by means of the prior conclusion, between the national grid manager and an equivalent local authority of that third State, of an agreement determining the verification arrangements necessary for the purpose of certifying that the electricity thus imported is electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

      (1)  OJ C 147, 25.5.2013.


title: Case T-318/00: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  19 October 2005  — Freistaat Thüringen v Commission (State aid — Misuse of aid — Likelihood of circumventing the recovery order — Recovery of aid from the companies which acquired the current assets from the initial recipient)

text:
               24.12.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 330/15

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 19 October 2005 — Freistaat Thüringen v Commission
   (Case T-318/00) (1)

   (State aid - Misuse of aid - Likelihood of circumventing the recovery order - Recovery of aid from the companies which acquired the current assets from the initial recipient)
   (2005/C 330/38)
   Language of the case: German
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Freistaat Thüringen (Germany) (represented by: M. Schütte, lawyer)

      Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K.D. Borchardt and V. Kreuschitz, Agents, assisted by C. Koenig)

      Intervener(s) in support of the applicant(s): Federal Republic of Germany, represented by W.-D. Plessing and T. Jürgensen, Agents, assisted by R. Bierwagen, lawyer

      Intervener(s) in support of the defendant(s): ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by I. Brinker and U. Soltész, lawyers)
   Subject-matter of the case
   Application for annulment of Commission Decision 2000/796/EC of 21 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH (Thuringia) (OJ 2000 L 318, p. 62),
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Annuls Commission Decision 2000/796/EC of 21 June 2000 on State aid granted by Germany to CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH (Thuringia) in so far as:

                           —

                           in Article 1(1) it includes, as part of the aid granted to R. E. Pilz GmbH & Co Beteiligungs KG, Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG and Pilz Albrechts GmbH for the establishment, operation and consolidation of the CD plant in Albrechts (Thuringia), an amount of DEM 54,7 million under the Land of Bavaria's guarantee, an amount of DEM 3 million as debt waiver, and an amount of DEM 63,45 million as part of the investment grants and allowances provided by the Land of Thuringia and the Land of Bavaria;

                           —

                           in Article 1(2) it includes as part of the aid granted for the restructuring of CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH an amount of DEM 33 million in share capital in PA/CD Albrechts and an amount of DEM 21,3 million in interest-rate advantages;

                           —

                           in Article 1(2) it states that the purchase price of DEM 3 million and the DEM 15 million loan granted by the LfA constitutes aid ‘for the restructuring of CDA Compact Disc Albrechts GmbH’;

                           —

                           in Article 2 it orders the recovery of the aid referred to in Article 1 from CDA Datenträger Albrechts GmbH and LCA Logistik Center Albrechts GmbH, as well as any other undertaking to which R.E. Pilz GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG's, Pilz & Robotron GmbH & Co. Beteiligungs KG's and Pilz Albrechts GmbH's assets and/or infrastructure have been transferred or will be transferred in such a way as to evade the consequences of that decision.

               2)

               Dismisses the remainder of the action.

               3)

               Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and those of the Land of Thuringia and orders the Federal Republic of Germany and ODS Optical Disc Service GmbH to bear their own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 355 of 9.12.2000


title: Case F-71/14: Action brought on 22 July 2014  — ZZ v European External Action Service (EEAS)

text:
               3.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 388/29

         Action brought on 22 July 2014 — ZZ v European External Action Service (EEAS)
   (Case F-71/14)
   2014/C 388/35
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L.F. de Castro and J.-L. Gillain, lawyers)

      Defendant: European External Action Service (EEAS)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision no longer to pay the allowance for living conditions (ALC), the additional payment (AP) based on the living conditions in the applicant’s place of employment and a daily allowance (DA), and to pay for 49 days’ leave not taken in respect of 2012 and a claim for compensation for the harm caused by a failure to offer aid or assistance and abandonment following the work-place accident suffered by the applicant.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Payment of the AP and ALC from 1 May 2012 to 31 October 2013, or, at the very least, payment thereof for the same period as that of the DA;

               —

               Payment for the 49 days’ leave not taken during 2012;

               —

               Re-establishment of the contract or the establishment of a new contract for an indefinite period or which must, at term, be confirmed as a contract for an indefinite period or compensation for the harm connected with the fact that, absent the accident, a new contract would have been concluded between the applicant and the defendant;

               —

               Compensation for the loss which she suffered following the accident. (i) EUR 10  000 as regards the failure to offer aid and assistance in Jordan and in Brussels on a medical, administrative and financial level; (ii) a sum equal to all the salary, allowances and benefits not paid and lost and costs incurred, medical and other, by the applicant because of the accident, provisionally estimated at EUR 50  000, in respect of the accident for which liability lies with the United Nations and the EEAS; the latter must assist and finance the action for a declaration of liability of the United Nations and all parties involved in the organisation of that period of probation. (iii) a provisional sum of EUR 50  000 in respect of the misuse of fixed-term contracts, each containing a probation clause, in particular the latter and the failure to renew it.


title: Case C-648/15: Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/45

         Action brought on 3 December 2015 — Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-648/15)
   (2016/C 038/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Republic of Austria (represented by: C. Pesendorfer, acting as Agent)

      Defendant: Federal Republic of Germany

      Form of order sought

   Action under Article 25(5) of the Convention concluded between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany concerning the avoidance of double taxation with respect to taxes on income and capital (öBGBl III 182/2002, dBGBl II 2002, 735, and dBStBl I 2002, 584) (‘the German-Austrian Double Taxation Convention’), read in conjunction with Article 273 TFEU, concerning discrepancies between the Republic of Austria and the Federal Republic of Germany in their views on the interpretation and application of Article 11 of that Convention.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               hold that income from the profit-participation certificates (Genussscheine) at issue in this case is not to be characterised as ‘profit participation claims’ within the meaning of Article 11(2) of the German-Austrian Double Taxation Convention. Consequently, under Article 11(1) of that Convention, Austria, as the State of the seat of Bank Austria, has the exclusive right to tax the income from such certificates;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to refrain from taxing Bank Austria’s income from the certificates at issue and to reimburse the taxes already levied on that income;

               —

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Republic of Austria objects to the Federal Republic of Germany characterising the income at issue as interest with a ‘profit participation’ element within the meaning of Article 11(2) of the German-Austrian Double Taxation Convention. While the return is generally calculated according to a fixed percentage, it is, in the view of the Federal Republic of Germany, profit-dependent in being subject to a condition that there is an adequate amount of profit.
   Contrary to the position of the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Austria takes the view that the certificates at issue confer solely an entitlement to interest calculated on the basis of a fixed percentage of the nominal value. This interpretation is, first of all, consistent with the meaning in everyday usage; it is also confirmed by a comparison with the financial instruments referred to, by way of example, in Article 11(2) of the German-Austrian Double Taxation Convention.
   In the present case, according to the Republic of Austria, the creditor accordingly merely grants the debtor an additional time for payment, since particularly during its lifespan a profit-participation certificate affords a right to defer payment to a later time. In effect, such certificates therefore correspond to fixed-interest negotiable instruments to which a certain risk of loss is attached.


title: Case C-355/09: Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Ireland

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/38

         Order of the President of the Court of 2 September 2010 — European Commission v Ireland
   (Case C-355/09) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 346/67
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 256, 24.10.2009.


title: Case C-9/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Other party: O. Inan

text:
               13.3.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 63/37

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 8 January 2010 — Staatssecretaris van Justitie, Other party: O. Inan
   (Case C-9/10)
   2010/C 63/59
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Raad van State

      Parties to the main proceedings

   Staatssecretaris van Justitie, O. Inan

      Questions referred

               1.

               Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 [of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council set up by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey] be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State cannot invoke that provision once that worker has acquired the nationality of the host Member State while retaining his Turkish nationality?

               2.

               In answering the first question is the time at which the Turkish worker concerned acquired the nationality of the host Member State of significance?