title: Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the European Union against the judgment delivered on 30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Case C-432/98 P)

text:
C 20/24                EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                   23.1.1999
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in                         from 1 March 1983, together with compound
Case C-429/98 (2); the time-limit prescribed by the                            legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;
directive expired on 22 September 1996.
                                                                           Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring
(1) OJ L 254, 30.9.1994, p. 64.                                                the respondent to pay the costs of the present
(2) See page 23 of this Official Journal.                                      proceedings, together with the costs of the
                                                                               proceedings before the Court of First Instance of
                                                                               the European Communities in Case T-237/87.
                                                                     Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
Appeal brought on 30 November 1998 by Nicolaos
Progoulis against the order made on 21 September 1998                Ð     manifest error of law on the part of the Court of
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 First Instance, in that it wrongly assimilated the
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              present case to Case T-16/97 Chauvin v. Commission:
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European                      the appellant pleaded, as a material new fact,
                           Communities                                     the revelation in Case T-17/95 Alexopoulou v.
                                                                           Commission that the respondent applied a restrictive
                        (Case C-431/98 P)                                  policy as regards (re)grading after 1 September 1993,
                                                                           even in respect of officials recruited prior to that
                          (1999/C 20/40)
                                                                           date. He at no time claimed that the respondent had
                                                                           refused to apply to him the decision of 1 September
                                                                           1993, as amended following delivery of the judgment
An appeal against the order made on 21 September 1998                      in Alexopoulou, with a view to a subjective
by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the                 examination of his exceptional' qualifications, as
European Communities in Case T-237/97 between                              was the case in Chauvin.
Nicolaos Progoulis and the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of
the European Communities on 30 November 1998 by                      Ð     absence of an adequate statement of reasons.
Nicolaos Progoulis, represented by Konstantinos
Adamantopoulos and Vassilios Akritidis, of the Athens
Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Arendt & Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias
Hardt.
                                                                     Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          the European Union against the judgment delivered on
                                                                     30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
                                                                     First Instance of the European Communities in Case
                                                                     T-154/96 between Christiane Chvatal and Others and the
(1) set aside in its entirety the order of the Court of First
                                                                     Court of Justice of the European Communities, supported
      Instance of the European Communities of
                                                                     by the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom
      21 September 1998 in Case T-237/97, in which the
                                                                                of the Netherlands
      appellant's application was dismissed as inadmissible;
                                                                                (Case C-432/98 P)
                                                                                (1999/C 20/41)
(2) itself determine the dispute concerning:
      Ð annulment of the respondent's decision of 13 May             An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
          1997 rejecting the appellant's complaint                   1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
          concerning refusal of his application to be                of the European Communities in Case T-154/96 between
          regraded in step 2 of grade B 1 with retroactive           Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of Justice of
          effect from 1 March 1983 and for the financial             the European Communities, supported by the Council of
          consequences of the regrading applied for to be            the European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands,
          taken into account and calculated retroactively            was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
          from 1 March 1983, together with compound                  Communities on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the
          legal interest at the annual rate of 10 %;                 European Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ,
                                                                     Director in its Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and
                                                                     TheÂreÁse Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for
      Ð the appellant's application for an order requiring           service in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro
          the respondent to pay him the amount                       Morbilli, Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate
          corresponding to the financial consequences of             of the European Investment Bank, 100 Boulevard Konrad
          the regrading applied for, calculated retroactively        Adenauer.
 ---pagebreak--- 23.1.1999            EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                    C 20/25
The appellant claims that the Court should:                          Ð Misapplication of the doctrine requiring the European
                                                                         Parliament to be reconsulted: in view of the fact that
                                                                         all the institutions concerned, namely the European
Ð set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of               Parliament, the Council and the Commission, were
    30 September 1998 in Case T-154/96 between                           aware that the regulations concerning termination of
    Christiane Chvatal and Others and the Court of                       service, applicable solely to the European Parliament,
    Justice of the European Communities, supported by                    were designed to meet a pressing wish expressed by
    the Council of the European Union and the Kingdom                    the latter institution, the flexibility of the Community
    of the Netherlands;                                                  legislative process, which is necessary in order to
                                                                         arrive at a convergence between the views expressed
Ð in its discretion, make the appropriate order as to the                by the institutions concerned, should apply in the
    costs of the proceedings before the Court of Justice.                present case as regards the form in which the
                                                                         European Parliament may communicate its opinion to
                                                                         the Council or its assent to an amendment to the
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                      proposal initially submitted by the Commission. In
                                                                         this case, excessive adherence to formalities impeded
(As to the admissibility of the action)                                  the proper functioning of the legislative process, whilst
                                                                         not meeting any need.
The analysis of the Court of First Instance concerning the
admissibility of the action is incorrect in law. The Council         Ð Erroneous insistence on the requirement that the Staff
considers that, although persons to whom the Staff                       Committee be reconsulted (misinterpretation of the
Regulations apply have an unrestricted right to submit                   scope of Article 10 of the Staff Regulations): the
requests falling within the scope of the Staff Regulations,              parallel drawn by the judgment of the Court of First
the right to submit requests may under no circumstances                  Instance between a joint body operating within the
be exercised in the absence of a proper legal basis. In the              institutions, legitimately representing the interests of a
present case, there cannot have been an act adversely                    particular category of persons, and the European
affecting an official, because, in its response, the                     Parliament, which is an institution democratically
appointing authority merely stated that, under the                       elected by direct universal suffrage, constitutes a
legislation as it then stood, there was no legal basis                   serious modification of the institutional system of the
enabling termination of service to take place. Only if                   European Union, as organised by the Treaty and
different legislation were adopted could the respondents'                interpreted by the case-law of the Court of Justice,
legal situation have altered. The construction placed on                 and hence an infringement of Community law.
the matter by the Court of First Instance, whereby it
concluded that the response given by the Court's                     (1) OJ L 280, 23.11.1995, p. 1.
appointing authority had had an adverse effect, is based
on an erroneous legal characterisation which is not in line
with previous case-law and which clearly encroaches on
the powers reserved by the Treaty to the legislature alone.
The Court of First Instance erred in declaring the                   Appeal brought on 1 December 1998 by the Council of
objection of illegality raised in relation to Council                the European Union against the judgment delivered on
Regulation (EC, ECSC, Euratom) No 2688/95 (1)                        30 September 1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of
admissible. In order for an objection of illegality to be            First Instance of the European Communities in Case
admissible, the application for annulment must itself be             T-13/97 between A. Losch and the Court of Justice of the
founded on a substantial cause of action, since the                  European Communities, supported by the Council of the
objection of illegality constitutes one of the pleas in law             European Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands
put forward in support of that application. In the present
case, the application was in reality aimed solely at                                       (Case C-433/98 P)
contesting the regulation.                                                                   (1999/C 20/42)
(As to the substance)
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 30 September
                                                                     1998 by the Fifth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
Ð Misapplication of the principle of non-discrimination:             of the European Communities in Case T-13/97 between A.
    the Court of First Instance erred in law in concluding           Losch and the Court of Justice of the European
    that the Council drew an arbitrary, or at least a                Communities, supported by the Council of the European
    manifestly inadequate, distinction in relation to the            Union and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, was brought
    objective pursued. The Parliament had undertaken not             before the Court of Justice of the European Communities
    to increase its complement of staff for five years, and          on 1 December 1998 by the Council of the European
    had called for the submission, as a matter of urgency,           Union, represented by Jean-Paul JacqueÂ, Director in its
    of a proposal for a regulation with respect to its               Legal Service, and Diego Canga Fano and TheÂreÁse
    personnel, whereas the Court had simply announced                Blanchet, of its Legal Service, with an address for service
    that it intended to take measures to terminate the               in Luxembourg at the Office of Alessandro Morbilli,
    service of a number of its officials.                            Director-General of the Legal Affairs Directorate of the


title: Case C-172/08: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2008 — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio

text:
               19.7.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 183/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma (Italy) lodged on 25 April 2008 — Pontina Ambiente Srl v Regione Lazio
   (Case C-172/08)
   (2008/C 183/23)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Commissione Tributaria Provinciale di Roma
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pontina Ambiente Srl

      Defendant: Regione Lazio
   Question referred
   Is Article 3(26) and (31) of Law No 549/95 incompatible with Articles 12, 14, 43 and 46 of the EEC Treaty and with Directives 35/2000/EC (1) and 31/1999/EC (2), with reference in particular to the principles laid down in the preamble to Directive 35/2000/EC and Article 10 of Directive 31/1999/EC, according to which, in particular, the Member States are required to prevent situations of inequality throughout the Community market by adopting provisions to combat late payments in order to prohibit abuse of freedom of contract to the disadvantage of the creditor where the principal purpose of a contract is to procure the debtor additional liquidity at the expense of the creditor and by making provision for compensation for the loss suffered by the creditor in the event of late payment by the debtor?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 200, p. 35.

      (2)  OJ 1999 L 182, p. 1.


title: Case C-510/15 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission (Appeal — Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court — Competition — Agreements, decisions and concerted practices — European prestressing steel market — Burden of proof — Presumption of innocence — Fines — 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines — Unlimited jurisdiction — Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence — Justification — Principles of proportionality and equal treatment)

text:
               19.9.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 343/14

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 7 July 2016 — Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA v European Commission
   (Case C-510/15 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - European prestressing steel market - Burden of proof - Presumption of innocence - Fines - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Unlimited jurisdiction - Determining the gravity of the infringement and the additional amount in respect of deterrence - Justification - Principles of proportionality and equal treatment))
   (2016/C 343/21)
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Parties

      Appellant: Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria, SA (represented by: T. Caiado Guerreiro and R. Rodrigues Lopes, Agents)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: V. Bottka and J. Szczodrowski, Agents, and by M. Marques Mendes and A. Dias Henriques, avocats)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               Fapricela — Indústria de Trefilaria SA shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 381, 16.11.2015.


title: Case C-56/15 P: Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission

text:
               13.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/21

         Appeal brought on 6 February 2015 by Global Steel Wire, S.A. against the order of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission
   (Case C-56/15 P)
   (2015/C 118/28)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Appellant: Global Steel Wire, S.A. (represented by: F. González Díaz and A. Tresandi Blanco, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside, pursuant to Article 263 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the order of the General Court of 25 November 2014 in Joined Cases T-429/10 and T-578/10 and in Case T-438/12 Global Steel Wire v Commission;

               —

               order the European Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of its appeal, the appellant puts forward a single ground of appeal.
   The appellant claims that the General Court erred in law in assessing the legal interest of Global Steel Wire in bringing proceedings, as regards both the action for annulment in Case T-578/10 against the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel), and the amendment of the pleas in law and forms of order sought in Case T-429/10 in relation to the decision of the Commission of 30 September 2010 amending Decision C(2010) 4387 (final) relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53(1) of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/38.344 — Prestressing Steel).


title: Action brought by ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH against the Commission of the European Communities, received by the Registry of the Court of Justice on 11 September 1998 and transmitted to the Court of First Instance pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of the EC Statute of the Court of Justice (Case T-145/98)

text:
19.12.98             EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 397/31
Louis, Thierry Demaseure and Ariane Tornel, of the                 tender to the defendant for the Project entitled FD RUS
Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at         9603 which concerned adapting Russian beef and dairy
the Office of Fiduciaire Myson SARL, 30 Rue de                     cattle farming to restructuring and which was worth ECU
Cessange, against Commission of the European                       3,7 million. Under the tendering procedure there were two
Communities (Agent: Ana Maria Alves Vieira) Ð                      rounds of evaluation to assess the shortlisted tenderers. In
application for suspension of operation of the                     the first round the applicant's tender was placed first,
Commission's decision of 18 January 1995 removing the              whereas in the second round it was only awarded second
applicant from his post as a disciplinary sanction Ð the           place.
President of the Court of First Instance made an order on
21 October 1998, the operative part of which is as
follows:
                                                                   The applicant was informed of the outcome of the second
                                                                   round of the tendering procedure, which is contested in
There is no need to adjudicate on the application for              this application, by letter of 26 June 1998. That letter
interim measures.                                                  stated that the applicant's tender was unsuccessful because
                                                                   it was inferior to the successful tender in terms of the
                                                                   experience of its team and its financial offer. However, in
                                                                   the tendering procedure as a whole there were serious
                                                                   breaches by the defendant and by the winning tenderer in
                                                                   the second round of the principle of fair competition on
                                                                   which every invitation to tender is based, with the result
Action brought by ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der
                                                                   that the award of the contract for this project must be
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH against
                                                                   annulled.
the Commission of the European Communities, received
by the Registry of the Court of Justice on 11 September
1998 and transmitted to the Court of First Instance
pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 47 of the EC
               Statute of the Court of Justice
                      (Case T-145/98)
                       (98/C 397/61)                               Action brought on 15 October 1998 by Anastasios
                                                                   Bisopoulos against the Commission of the European
              (Language of the case: German)                                               Communities
                                                                                (Case T-168/98)
An action against the Commission of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                                         (98/C 397/62)
Instance of the European Communities on 11 September
1998 by ADT Projekt Gesellschaft der Arbeitsgemeinschaft
Deutscher Tierzüchter mbH, Bonn (FRG), represented by                             (Language of the case: French)
Andreas Hansen, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for
service at Uelzener Straûe 8, Bienenbüttel (FRG).
                                                                   An action against the Commission of the European
The applicant claims that the Court should:                        Communities was brought before the Court of First
                                                                   Instance of the European Communities on 15 October
1.   declare that the decision of the defendant of 26 June         1998 by Anastasios Bisopoulos, residing in Brussels,
    1998, notified to the applicant on 6 July 1998, is             represented by Eric Boigelot, of the Brussels Bar, with an
    unlawful,                                                      address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of
                                                                   Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort Rheinsheim.
2. declare further that the defendant is bound to award
    the contract to carry out Project No FD RUS 9603 to
    the applicant,                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
3. Order the defendant to pay to the applicant the sum
    of DEM 550 000 by way of damages,                              Ð annul the decision of the appointing authority of
                                                                       12 February 1998, which took effect on 16 February
                                                                       1998 and was communicated to the applicant on
4. in the alternative, order the defendant to pay to the               27 February 1998, inasmuch as it classifies the
    applicant the sum of DEM 225 250 by way of
                                                                       applicant in grade A 5, step 5, which seniority in step
    damages.
                                                                       as from 1 May 1997;
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                   Ð annul the implicit decision rejecting the complaint of
The applicant, which operates a successful livestock                   25 May 1998, registered on 27 May 1998 under
consultancy throughout Eastern Europe, submitted a                     number R492/98;


title: Case T-385/05 TO: Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica and Commission (Third-party proceedings — Opportunity for the third party to take part in the original case — No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party — Inadmissibility)

text:
               6.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 301/28

         Order of the General Court of 6 September 2010 — Portuguese Republic v Transnáutica and Commission
   (Case T-385/05 TO) (1)

   (Third-party proceedings - Opportunity for the third party to take part in the original case - No prejudicial effects on the rights of the third party - Inadmissibility)
   2010/C 301/47
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Third Party: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, A.C. Santos, J. Gomes and P. Rocha, Agents)

      Other parties to proceedings: Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, (Matosinhos, Portugal) (represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortigão Ramos, P. Carmona Botana, M.T. López Garrido and P. Vidal Matos, lawyers); and European Commission (represented by: R. Lyal and L. Bouyon, lawyers)

      Re:

   Application initiating third-party proceedings to contest the judgment of 23 September 2009 in Case T-385/05 Transnáutica v Commission, not published in the ECR

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application initiating third-party proceedings is dismissed as inadmissible.

               2.

               The Portuguese Republic shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by Transnáutica — Transportes e Navegação, SA, including those relating to the interim proceedings.

               3.

               The European Commission shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 330, 24.12.2005.


               9.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 251/12

         Election of the President of the Court of First Instance
   (2004/C 251/21)
   On 8 September 2004 the Court of First Instance, in accordance with Article 7 of the Rules of Procedure, elected Judge Bo Vesterdorf as President for the period from 8 September 2004 to 31 August 2007.


title: Case C-347/00: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo Social n° 3, Orense, by order of that court of 17 July 2000 in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social

text:
C 355/8               EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                          9.12.2000
     Kingdom of Belgium in connection with aid relating to             —     Breach of Article 2 EC and of article 10 EC: the
     the sale at reduced price of butter and the grant of aid                Commission has rendered devoid of purpose the pro-
     for concentrated butter and cream intended for the                      cedure before the conciliation body by taking part therein
     manufacture of pastry products, ice-cream and other food                on a strictly formal basis, that is to say without meeting
     products (2);                                                           the representatives of Belgium and without giving the
                                                                             real reasons for the contested decisions.
3.   Order the Commission of the European Communities to               —     Breach of the principle of the protection of legitimate
     pay the costs.                                                          expectations: the, Commission relies essentially on the
                                                                             one of the grounds of the decision delivered on 13 July
                                                                             1997 by the Court of First Instance of the European
                                                                             Communities in a case 5 in which Regulation No 570/88
Contentions and principal arguments adduced in support                       was not even at issue.
—    Lack of any legal basis for the contested decisions:              (1) OJ L 1999 L 61, p. 37.
     Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC)                       (2) Decision 2000/448/EC and 2000/449/EC: OJ 2000 L 180, pp. 46
     No 570/88 (3) lays down the conditions for aid for the                and 49.
     use of butter for the manufacture of pastry products or           (3) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 570/88 of 16 February 1988
     ice-cream: the butter must, in the Member State of                    on the sale of butter at reduced prices and the granting of aid for
     manufacture, comply with the definition and classifi-                 butter and concentrated butter for use in the manufacture of
                                                                           pastry products, ice-cream and other foodstuffs (OJ L 55,
     cation appearing in Article 1(3)(b) of Regulation (EEC)               1.3.1988, p. 31).
     No 985/68 of the Council (4), that is to say it must be           (4) Regulation (EEC) No 985/68 of the Council of 15 July 1968
     graded ‘beurre de marque de contrôle’ in the case of                  laying down general rules for intervention on the market in butter
     Belgian butter. The Commission is wrong to contend that               and cream (OJ, English Special Edition, 68(I) p. 56).
     the conditions laid down by Article 1(3)(a) of Regulation
     No 985/68 (manufacture of butter from inter alia sour or
     sweet cream) were nevertheless applicable because they
     gave a general definition of butter and the two conditions
     were applied cumulatively under earlier rules. As a result
     of the classification ‘beurre de laiterie: qualité extra’
     adopted on 28 February 1994 by the Belgian authorities,
     the technologically adapted butter (‘BITA’) of the com-
     pany Corman, which until then benefited from the aid
     provided for in Article 9 of Regulation (EEC) No 570/88,          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Juzgado de lo
     started to benefit from Community aid under Article 1 of          Social no 3, Orense, by order of that court of 17 July 2000
     Regulation No 570/88, without any change having taken             in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     place in the applicable Community rules or any change             Nacional de la Seguridad Social and Tesorerı́a General de
     having been made to the product in question.                                              la Seguridad Social
                                                                                (Case C-347/00)
     The conditions for the application of Articles 2 and 3
     of Regulation No 729/70, namely the existence of
     irregularities or negligence, are certainly not fulfilled in                                (2000/C 355/14)
     this case because the interpretation given to the rules by
     Belgium, even if it were to be considered incorrect —
     which is not the case — is attributable above all to breach       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     of the principle of legal certainty as a result of action         European Communities by order of the Juzgado de lo Social
     taken by the Commission itself.                                   (Social Court) no 3, Orense, Spain, of 17 July 2000, received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 20 September 2000, for a preliminary
                                                                       ruling in the case of Ángel Barreira Pérez against Instituto
     By virtue of the principle of subsidiarity and the settled        Nacional de la Seguridad Social (National Social Security
     case law of the Court of Justice concerning the residual          Institute) and Tesorerı́a General de la Seguridad Social (General
     powers of the Member States where Community harmon-               Social Security Fund) on the following questions:
     isation is not complete and all-embracing, Belgium remai-
     ned competent to define what it might grade as ‘beurre            1.    Must Article 1(r) and (s) [of Council Regulation No
     de marque de contrôle’.                                                 1408/71] be interpreted as meaning that periods of
                                                                             notional, equivalent contribution, which may be taken
                                                                             into account under the legislation of a Member State for
—    Breach of the principle of proportionality: the aid received            the purpose of determining the number of years of
     by Corman is of the same amount, whether on the basis                   contribution by reference to which the amount of old-
     of the allegedly unlawful Article 1 or on the basis of                  age pension is determined under domestic legislation, are
     Article 9a of Regulation No 570/88, this being accepted                 also to be considered from a legal viewpoint as ‘periods
     by the Commission of the European Communities.                          of insurance’?
 ---pagebreak--- 9.12.2000                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 355/9
2.    If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is      Infringement of Article 190                        of  the    EC
      the proper construction of Article 46(2)(b) [of that               Treaty (now Article 253 EC)
      regulation] that ‘the duration of the periods of insurance
      or of residence completed before the materialisation of            Regulation No 1364/00 provides no reason for fixing the
      the risk under the legislation which [the competent                derived intervention price for another five Member States but
      institution of a Member State] administers’ also includes          not for Italy. Neither does Regulation No 1363/00 provide
      those periods of notional contribution corresponding to            any reason for fixing the intervention price. This prevents the
      periods prior to materialisation of the risk which, under          Italian Government from exercising its rights of the defence
      the legislation of the Member State concerned, are to be           and also hinders judicial review of the contested measures.
      taken into account as periods of contribution for the
      purpose of determining the amount of old-age pension?
                                                                         Breach of the principle of equality
                                                                         Article 1 of Regulation No 1364/00 fails to fix the derived
                                                                         intervention price for white sugar in respect of Italy while
                                                                         confirming it for five other Member States.
                                                                         Even though the Italian Government does not know why the
                                                                         Council has refused to fix a derived intervention price for Italy
                                                                         while confirming it for the other Member States, it nevertheless
                                                                         denounces a breach of the principle of equality and complains
Action brought on 22 September 2000 by Council of the                    that it has been treated differently.
         European Union against the Italian Republic
                                                                         (1) OJ L 156, p. 3.
                                                                         (2) L 156, p. 1.
                          (Case C-352/00)
                          (2000/C 355/15)
An action against the Council of the European Union was                  Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-             Amministrativo Regionale per la Toscana by order of that
ties on 22 September 2000 by the Italian Republic, represented           court of 18 January 2000 in the case of Antonio Testa
by Umberto Leanza, assisted by Danilo del Gaizo, acting as               and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Nazionale per le
Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg at the                 Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention ad
Italian Embassy, 5 Rue Marie-Adélaïde.                                                adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                                       (Case C-356/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 355/16)
—     annul Article 1 of Council Regulation No 1364/00 (1) in
      so far as it fails to fix the derived intervention price for       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
      white sugar in respect of all the Italian areas for the            European Communities by order of the Tribunale Amministra-
      2000/2001 marketing year; in so far as necessary, also             tivo Regionale per la Toscana (Regional Administrative Court,
      annul Article 1(2) of Council Regulation No 1363/00 (2)            Tuscany) of 18 January 2000, received at the Court Registry
      in so far as it fixes the intervention price for Italy;            on 25 September 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                         Antonio Testa and Lido Lazzeri against Commissione Naziona-
—     order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.          le per le Società e la Borsa (CONSOB) with the intervention
                                                                         ad adjuvandum of Banca Fideuram SpA on the following
                                                                         questions:
Pleas in law and main arguments                                          1.    Must Point 3 of Section A of the Annex to Council
                                                                               Directive 93/22/EEC (1) of 10 May 1993 (on investment
                                                                               services in the securities field), which contains the defi-
                                                                               nition ‘[m]anaging portfolios of investments in accord-
Infringement of Article 3(4) and (5) of Basic                                  ance with mandates given by investors on a discriminat-
Regulation No 2038/99                                                          ory, client-by-client basis’ be interpreted as meaning that
                                                                               that Community provision is infringed by a national
                                                                               provision which departs from it and which, in this case,
The Council infringed Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic                        does not require that the management of portfolios of
regulation by fixing intervention prices (including the derived                investments should be on ‘a discriminatory, client-by-
intervention prices) in June or July 2000 when it should have                  client basis’ and ‘in accordance with mandates given by
fixed them earlier in August 1999.                                             investors’?


title: Case C-80/07: Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic

text:
               25.8.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 199/25

         Order of the President of the Court of 20 June 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Hellenic Republic
   (Case C-80/07) (1)

   (2007/C 199/44)

      Language of the case: Greek

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

      (1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2004 in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic (Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sportsmen and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)

text:
C 85/10                  EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               3.4.2004
Article 5(1) of the Convention of 27 September 1968 on jurisdiction          of initiating a procedure for that purpose without having
and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters,            shown that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian
as amended by the Convention of 9 October 1978 on the accession              Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28
of the Kingdom of Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom of                 EC and 30 EC, the Court (Third Chamber), composed of:
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, by the Convention of 25 October          C. Gulmann, acting for the President of the Chamber, J.-
1982 on the accession of the Hellenic Republic and by the Convention         P. Puissochet and F. Macken (Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo,
of 26 May 1989 on the accession of the Kingdom of Spain and the              Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
Portuguese Republic, must be interpreted as follows:                         on 5 February 2004, in which it:
                                                                             1.    Declares that, by maintaining in force legislation which subjects
‘matters relating to a contract’ do not cover the obligation which a
                                                                                the marketing of food products for sportsmen and women
guarantor who paid customs duties under a guarantee obtained by
                                                                                lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member States to
the forwarding agent seeks to enforce in legal proceedings by way of
                                                                                a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and of
subrogation to the rights of the customs authorities and by way of
                                                                                initiating a procedure for that purpose without having shown
recourse against the owner of the goods, if the latter, who was not a
                                                                                that it is necessary and proportionate, the Italian Republic has
party to the contract of guarantee, did not authorise the conclusion of
                                                                                failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 28 EC and 30 EC;
that contract.
                                                                             2.    Orders the Italian Republic to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 219 of 14.9.2002.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          (Third Chamber)
                                                                                (Third Chamber)
                         of 5 February 2004
                                                                                of 12 February 2004
in Case C-270/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                      ties v Italian Republic (1)                            in Case C-406/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v Kingdom of Belgium (1)
(Measures having equivalent effect — Foodstuffs for sports-
men and women lawfully manufactured and marketed in                          (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
   other Member States — Prior marketing authorisation)                      to communicate reports required under Directives 76/464/
                                                                             EEC, 78/659/EEC and 80/68/EEC — Standardising and
                                                                             rationalising reports on the implementation of certain direc-
                            (2004/C 85/14)
                                                                                tives relating to the environment)
                     (Language of the case: Italian)                                                      (2004/C 85/15)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                             (Language of the case: French)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-270/02, Commission of the European Communities
(Agents: C.-F. Durand and R. Amorosi) v Italian Republic
(Agent: I. M. Braguglia, assisted by G. Aiello, avvocato dello
Stato) with an address for service in Luxembourg: Application                In Case C-406/02, Commission of the European Communities
for a declaration that, by maintaining in force legislation which            (Agent: B. Stromsky) with an address for service in Luxem-
subjects the marketing of food products for sportsmen and                    bourg, v Kingdom of Belgium (Agent: E. Dominkovitz) with
women lawfully manufactured and marketed in other Member                     an address for service in Luxembourg: Application for a
States to a requirement of applying for prior authorisation and              declaration that, by failing to communicate to it, within the


title: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 May 2001 in Case C-86/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Freemans plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Discount accounted for at the time of the supply — Price reduction after the supply takes place)

text:
14.7.2001              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                           C 200/23
No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical                 Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation
nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987                   of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —
L 256, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assess-
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 (OJ 1997 L 168, p. 35), and                   ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
the validity of Regulation No 1153/97 and Commission                     composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the Chamber, V. Skour-
Regulation (EC) No 2086/97 of 4 November 1997 amending                   is, R. Schintgen, F. Macken and N. Colneric (Rapporteur),
Annex I to Council Regulation No 2658/87 (OJ 1997 L 312,                 Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau,
p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: A. La Pergola,           Head of Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
President of the Chamber, D.A.O. Edward (Rapporteur),                    29 May 2001, in which it has ruled:
P. Jann, L. Sevón and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; A. Tizzano,
Advocat General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 June 2001, in which it              Upon a proper construction of Article 11A(3)(b) and C(1) of the
has ruled:                                                               Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the
                                                                         harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover
                                                                         taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of
Electronic circuit boards which enable automatic data-processing         assessment, the taxable amount in respect of goods supplied by mail
equipment and units thereof to process audio signals (sound              order from a catalogue to a customer for the customer’s own use
cards) are to be classified under heading 8471 of the Combined           where the supplier allows the customer a discount from the catalogue
Nomenclature, as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)                   price, a separate account being credited in the customer’s favour with
No 1153/97 of 24 June 1997 amending Annex I to Council                   the amount of that discount as and when instalment payments are
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomencla-      paid to the supplier — a discount which may then be immediately
ture and on the Common Customs Tariff.                                   withdrawn or used in another way by the customer — is the full
                                                                         catalogue price of the goods sold to the customer, reduced accordingly
                                                                         by the amount of that discount at the time when it is withdrawn or
(1) OJ C 63 of 4.3.2000.                                                 used in another way by the customer.
                                                                         (1) OJ C 160 of 5.6.1999.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (Sixth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                          of 29 May 2001
                                                                                of 29 May 2001
in Case C-86/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the VAT and Duties Tribunal, London): Freemans plc v                     in Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communi-
          Commissioners of Customs and Excise (1)                                              ties v Italian Republic (1)
(Sixth VAT Directive — Taxable amount — Discount                         (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
accounted for at the time of the supply — Price reduction                Freedom of establishment — Freedom to provide services —
                   after the supply takes place)                                          Activity of transport consultant)
                         (2001/C 200/40)                                                            (2001/C 200/41)
                   (Language of the case: English)                                            (Language of the case: Italian)
In Case C-86/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the VAT and Duties                                   in the European Court Reports)
Tribunal, London (United Kingdom), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that court between Free-
mans plc and Commissioners of Customs and Excise — on the                In Case C-263/99: Commission of the European Communities
interpretation of Article 11A(3)b and C(1) of the Sixth Council          (Agents: initially A. Aresu and M. Patakia, and, subsequently,


title: Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Block and Others and Knaul and Others v Commission

text:
               20.11.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 317/50

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 16 September 2010 — Block and Others and Knaul and Others v Commission
   (Joined Cases F-8/05 and F-10/05) (1)

   ()
   2010/C 317/91
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the cases be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005, p. 33 and p. 36.


title: Case C-464/99: Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
19.2.2000               EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 47/21
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.                         the Commission. That period expired on 16 March 1998
                                                                        without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
                                                                        Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
Pleas in law and main arguments                                         into national law.
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          (1) OJ L 243 of 24.9.1996, p. 31.
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to
the Commission. That period expired on 21 May 1998
without the Hellenic Republic having communicated to the
Commission the provisions transposing the directive at issue
into national law.                                                      Appeal brought on 3 December 1999 by PARTEX, Com-
                                                                        panhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, against the judgment
                                                                        delivered on 16 September 1999 by the Third Chamber
(1) OJ L 296 of 21.11.1996, p. 55.
                                                                        of the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-
                                                                        ties in Case T-182/96 (1) between PARTEX, Companhia
                                                                        Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
                                                                                (Case C-465/99 P)
Action brought on 1 December 1999 by the Commission
of the European Communities against the Hellenic Repub-                                          (2000/C 47/35)
                                lic
                                                                        An appeal against the judgment delivered on 16 September
                         (Case C-464/99)                                1999 by the Third Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                        European Communities in Case T-182/96 between PARTEX,
                          (2000/C 47/34)                                Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, and Commission of
                                                                        the European Communities was brought before the Court of
An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before the          Justice of the European Communities on 3 December 1999 by
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 1 December              PARTEX, Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços, SA, represented
1999 by the Commission of the European Communities,                     by Rui Chancerelle de Machete, Pedro Machete and Miguel
represented by Lena Ström, Legal Adviser in its Legal Service,          Pena Machete, of the Lisbon Bar, with an address for service in
and Panagiotis Panagiotopoulos, a national expert on                    Luxembourg at the Chambers of Louis Schiltz, 2 Rue du Fort
secondment to that service, with an address for service in              Rheinsheim, L-2419 Luxembourg.
Luxembourg at the office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its
Legal Service, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.                                The appellant claims that the Court should:
The Commission claims that the Court should:                            1. set aside the contested judgment on the ground of error in
                                                                            law in that the legislation applicable to the European Social
— declare that, by not adopting and, as a subsidiary claim,                 Fund (ESF) was incorrectly applied and/or on the ground
    by not communicating to the Commission, within the                      that the decision regarding the existence of abuse of rights
    time-limit laid down the laws, regulations and administrat-             and breach of the rights of the defence, of the principles of
    ive provisions necessary to comply fully with Council                   good faith, of the protection of legitimate expectations and
    Directive 96/59/EC (1) of 16 September 1996 on the                      of acquired rights was wrong as was the decision regarding
    disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls and polychlorinated               misuse of powers, inasmuch as they are based on matters
    terphenyls (PCB/PCT), the Hellenic Republic has failed to               of fact which are materially wrong or inaccurate, reserving,
    fulfil its obligations under the Treaty and that directive;             however, that part of the judgment in which it upheld in
                                                                            part the action brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96;
— order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                        2. accordingly, annul Commission Decision C(96) 1184 of
                                                                            14 August 1996, which was the subject-matter of the
Pleas in law and main arguments                                             action in Case T-182/9, on the ground that the Com-
                                                                            mission infringed the legislation applicable to the ESF;
The Member States are required by the binding character of
the third paragraph of Article 249 EC and of Article 10 EC (ex          3. in the event that it should dismiss the claims set out above,
third paragraph of Article 189 and Article 5 of the EC Treaty)              set aside the contested judgment, reserving, however, that
to adopt the measures needed to transpose directives into                   part of the judgment in which it upheld in part the action
national law before the expiry of the period laid down for that             brought by PARTEX in Case T-182/96, on the ground that
purpose and to communicate those measures immediately to                    it adjudicates on only part of the substance of the case;


title: Judgment of the Court of 26 September 2000 in Case C-175/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil de Prud'hommes de Metz): Didier Mayeur v Association Promotion de l'Information Messine (APIM) (Maintenance of workers' rights in the event of transfer of an undertaking — Transfer to a municipality of an activity previously carried out, in the interests of that municipality, by a legal person established under private law)

text:
9.12.2000               EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                               C 355/1
                                                                         I
                                                                   (Information)
                                                     COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                               COURT OF JUSTICE
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       On a proper construction of Article 1(1) of Council Directive
                                                                             77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the approximation of the
                                                                             laws of the Member States relating to the safeguarding of employees’
                      of 26 September 2000                                   rights in the event of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of
                                                                             businesses, that directive applies where a municipality, a legal person
                                                                             governed by public law operating within the framework of specific
in Case C-175/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Conseil de Prud’hommes de Metz): Didier Mayeur v                         rules of administrative law, takes over activities relating to publicity
Association Promotion de l’Information Messine                               and information concerning the services which it offers to the public,
                                                                             where such activities were previously carried out, in the interests of
                             (APIM)(1)
                                                                             that municipality, by a non-profit-making association which was a
                                                                             legal person governed by private law, provided always that the
(Maintenance of workers’ rights in the event of transfer of                  transferred entity retains its identity.
an undertaking — Transfer to a municipality of an activity
previously carried out, in the interests of that municipality,
                                                                             (1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999.
        by a legal person established under private law)
                          (2000/C 355/01)
                    (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                                of 5 October 2000
                   in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             in Joined Cases C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P: Council of the
                                                                                European Union v Christine Chvatal and Others (1)
In Case C-175/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Conseil de
                                                                             (Appeal — Officials — Termination of service as a result of
Prud’hommes de Metz (Labour Tribunal, Metz), France for a
                                                                             the accession of new Member States — Objection that
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                    Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2688/95 is unlawful
tribunal between Didier Mayeur and Association Promotion
                                                                                — Objection inadmissible)
de l’Information Messine (APIM) — on the interpretation of
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February
1977 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States                                              (2000/C 355/02)
relating to the safeguarding of employees’ rights in the event
of transfers of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses
(OJ 1977 L 61 p. 26) — the Court, composed of: G.C. Rodrı́-                                       (Language of the case: French)
guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur),
D.A.O. Edward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen (Presidents of
Chambers), P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,                        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and                                         in the European Court Reports)
V. Skouris, Judges; P. Léger, Advocate General; L. Hewlett,
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on                    In Joined Cases C-432/98 P and C-433/98 P: Council of the
26 September 2000, in which it has ruled:                                    European Union (Agents: J.P. Jacqué, D. Canga Fano and


title: Case C-81/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Idrima Tipou AE v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis (Freedom of establishment — Free movement of capital — Company law — First Directive 68/151/EEC — Public limited company in the press and television sector — Company and shareholder holding more than 2,5 % of the shares — Administrative fine imposed jointly and severally)

text:
               18.12.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/12

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Simvoulio tis Epikratias (Greece)) — Idrima Tipou AE v Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis
   (Case C-81/09) (1)

   (Freedom of establishment - Free movement of capital - Company law - First Directive 68/151/EEC - Public limited company in the press and television sector - Company and shareholder holding more than 2,5 % of the shares - Administrative fine imposed jointly and severally)
   2010/C 346/19
   Language of the case: Greek

      Referring court

   Simvoulio tis Epikratias

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Idrima Tipou AE

      Defendant: Ipourgos Tipou kai Meson Mazikis Enimerosis

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Simvoulio tis Epikratias — Interpretation of Article 1 of First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (I), p. 41) — National provision establishing joint and several liability of a public limited company in the press and television sector and its shareholders holding more than 2.5% of its share capital for payment of administrative fines imposed as a result of such a company’s activities

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               First Council Directive 68/151/EEC of 9 March 1968 on co-ordination of safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and others, are required by Member States of companies within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 58 of the Treaty, with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation such as Article 4(3) of Law No 2328/1995 ‘Legal regime governing private television and local radio, regulation of issues relating to the broadcasting market and other provisions’, as amended by Law No 2644/1998 ‘on the provision of subscription radio and television services’, according to which the fines provided for in the preceding paragraphs of that article for infringement of the legislation and rules of good conduct governing the operation of television stations are imposed jointly and severally, not only on the company which holds the licence to found and operate the television station but also on all shareholders with a holding of over 2,5 %.

               2.

               Articles 49 TFEU and 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding such national legislation.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 1.5.2009.


title: Case T-798/14: Action brought on 5 December 2014 — DenizBank v Council

text:
               16.3.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 89/29

         Action brought on 5 December 2014 — DenizBank v Council
   (Case T-798/14)
   (2015/C 089/35)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: DenizBank A.Ș. (Esentepe, Turkey) (represented by: M. Lester and O. Jones, Barristers, R. Mattick and S. Utku, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 (1) and Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 (2) (together the contested measures) insofar as they apply to the applicant;

               —

               declare the inapplicability pursuant to Article 277 TFEU as regards Article 1 of the 8 September Decision, and Article 1(5) of the 8 September Regulation; and

               —

               order the Council to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached its duty to give reasons for imposing the contested measures on the applicant. Further, the applicant contends that the Council has given it no reasons at all for imposing the contested measures on it, nor even informed it of its inclusion.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence, including its right to a fair hearing and to effective judicial review. The applicant submits that the Council has given the applicant no reasons or evidence for imposing the contested measures on it, no opportunity for it to comment on the case against it, and has thereby also impeded the Court from ‘exercising effective judicial review’.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that insofar as it has imposed the contested measures on the applicant, the Council has breached the Ankara Agreement between Turkey and the EU (and its Additional Protocol) in a number of respects.

               4.

               Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council has breached the principles of non-discrimination and proportionality, and has imposed an unjustified and disproportionate restriction on the applicant’s fundamental rights.

      (1)  Council Decision 2014/659/CFSP of 8 September 2014 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 54).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EU) No 960/2014 of 8 September 2014 amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia's actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine (OJ L 271, p. 3).


title: Case T-226/12: Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)

text:
               28.7.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 227/26

         Action brought on 29 May 2012 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — LĺDL MUSIC (LIDL)
   (Case T-226/12)
   2012/C 227/44
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Schaeffer, M. Wolter and A. Marx, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: LĺDL MUSIC, spol. s r.o. (Brno, Czech Republic)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 2380/2010-1);

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LIDL’ for goods in class 15 — Community trade mark application No 6 861 025

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark and community word mark ‘LÍDL MUSIC’ for goods in class 15

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

      Pleas in law:

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Rule 22(3) and (4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95;

               —

               Infringement of Article 15(1)(a) in combination with Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009;

               —

               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


title: Case C-568/10: Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/19

         Action brought on 6 December 2010 — European Commission v Republic of Austria
   (Case C-568/10)
   2011/C 55/33
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: Maria Condou-Durande and W. Bogensberger, Agents)

      Defendant: Republic of Austria

      Form of order sought

               —

               declare that, by introducing rules under which students who are third-country nationals may be granted a work permit only after the labour-market situation in Austria has been examined in order to ensure that the vacancy cannot be filled by someone registered as unemployed, the Republic of Austria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 17(1) of Council Directive 2004/114/EC of 13 December 2004 on the conditions of admission of third-country nationals for the purposes of studies, pupil exchange, unremunerated training or voluntary service; (1)

               —

               order the Republic of Austria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The Commission considers that the provisions of Austrian law systematically deny students who are third-country nationals access to the labour market, in that they are issued a work permit for a vacant position only if a check has been previously carried out as to whether the position cannot be filled by a person registered as unemployed. Consequently, according to the Commission, the number of work permits issued for this category of persons is very low. For that reason, only 10 % of students who are third-country nationals, in comparison with 70 % of Austrian students, have the possibility to finance part of the costs of their studies by means of employment.
   In the view of the Republic of Austria, these restrictions are justified. It claims that, because of its free access to university and low university fees, Austria is particularly attractive for third-country nationals. Due to their inadequate knowledge of German and lack of professional qualifications, they generally find employment in unqualified areas and thereby increase yet further the currently high unemployment rate in this sector.

      (1)  OJ 2004 L 375, p. 12.


title: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 7 September 2004 in Case C-346/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Insurance — Third non-life insurance directive — Bonus-malus system)

text:
               23.10.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 262/5

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Grand Chamber)
   of 7 September 2004
   in Case C-346/02: Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (1)

   (Insurance - Third non-life insurance directive - Bonus-malus system)
   (2004/C 262/08)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-346/02, action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 30 September 2002, Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C. Tufvesson and J.-F. Pasquier) v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Agent: P. Gramegna, assisted by A. Schmitt) — the Court (Grand Chamber), composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans (Rapporteur), C. Gulmann and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Presidents of Chambers, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr, R. Silva de Lapuerta and K. Lenaerts, Judges, C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 7 September 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 289 of 23.11.2002.


title: Case F-122/15: Action brought on 22 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               26.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 354/57

         Action brought on 22 August 2015 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-122/15)
   (2015/C 354/70)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision transferring the applicant’s pension rights to the European Union pension scheme, which applies the new general implementing provisions (GIP) for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               Declare illegal Article 9 of the general implementing provisions for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Annul the decision of 6 January 2015 confirming the transfer of the pension rights acquired prior to his entry to the service pursuant to the general implementing provisions adopted on 3 March 2011 for Article 11(2) of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-292/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Vedat Deniz v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: Deutsche Post AG

text:
               28.10.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 261/9

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Köln lodged on 3 July 2006 — Vedat Deniz v Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Third Party: Deutsche Post AG
   (Case C-292/06)
   (2006/C 261/16)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Köln
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Mr Vedat Deniz

      Defendant: Bundesrepublik Deutschland

      Third Party: Deutsche Post AG
   Question referred
   Is Article 47(2), in conjunction with Article 95 EC, the fifth indent of Article 12, and Article 7(1) of Directive 97/67/EC, in the version amended by Directive 2002/39/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 (1), to be interpreted as meaning that, where a universal service provider applies special tariffs for business customers who give postal items to the sorting office pre-sorted for the postal network, that universal service provider is obliged to apply those special tariffs also to undertakings which collect postal items from the sender and give them pre-sorted for the postal network at the same access point and on the same terms and conditions as business customers, without the universal service provider being permitted to refuse to do so, having regard to its obligation to provide a universal service?

      (1)  OJ 2002 L 176, p. 21.


title: Case T-130/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2005 — Alcon v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark TRIVASTAN — Application for Community word mark TRAVATAN — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
               12.11.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 281/20

         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 22 September 2005 — Alcon v OHIM
   (Case T-130/03) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark TRIVASTAN - Application for Community word mark TRAVATAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 281/36)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Applicant(s): Alcon Inc. (Hünenberg, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Breen, Solicitor, and J. Gleeson, Barrister)

      Defendant(s): Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas and S. Laitinen, Agents)

      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance

         :
       Biofarma SA, (Neuilly-sur-Seine, France) (represented by: V. Gil Vega, A. Ruiz Lopez, and D. González Maroto, lawyer)
   Application for
   annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2003 (Case R 968/2001-3) concerning opposition proceedings between Alcon Inc. and Biofarma SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 158, 5.7.2003.


title: Case T-304/09: Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark BASmALI — Earlier non-registered trade mark and earlier sign BASMATI — Relative ground for refusal — Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

text:
               25.2.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 58/7

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 January 2012 — Tilda Riceland Private v OHIM — Siam Grains (BASMALI)
   (Case T-304/09) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark BASmALI - Earlier non-registered trade mark and earlier sign BASMATI - Relative ground for refusal - Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   2012/C 58/12
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Tilda Riceland Private Ltd (Gurgaon, India) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, N. Urwin and D. Sills, Solicitors)

      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Siam Grains Co. Ltd (Bangkok, Thailand) (represented by: C. Thomas-Raquin, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 March 2009 (Case R 513/2008-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Tilda Riceland Private Ltd and Siam Grains Co. Ltd.

      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 19 March 2009 (Case R 513/2008-1);

               2.

               Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay two thirds of the costs incurred by Tilda Riceland Private Ltd;

               3.

               Orders Siam Grains Co. Ltd to bear its own costs and to pay one third of the costs incurred by Tilda Riceland Private Ltd.

      (1)  OJ C 244, 10.10.2009.


title: Case F-47/16: Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission

text:
               10.10.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 371/33

         Action brought on 26 August 2016 — ZZ v Commission
   (Case F-47/16)
   (2016/C 371/38)
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

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

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The application to annul the decision not to include the applicant on the list of officials promoted in the context of the 2015 annul promotion exercise.

      Form of order sought

               —

               annul AIPN’s decision not to promote the applicant in the 2015 promotion exercise;

               —

               order the Commission to pay the costs.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fourth Chamber) of 16 February 1995 in Joined Cases C-29/94, C-30/94, C-31/94, C-32/94, C-33/94, C-34/94 and C-35/94 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de Charleville-Mézières (France)): Criminal proceedings against Jean-Louis Aubertin, Bernard Collignon, Guy Creusot, Isabelle Diblanc, Gilles Josse, Jacqueline Martin, Claudie Normand (Hairdressers - Council Directive 82/489/EEC)

text:
8 . 4. 95           LEN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 No C 87/1
                                                                  I
                                                            (Information)
                                              COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  interpreted as not precluding national rules which require
                       (Fourth Chamber)                               that nationals of that Member State hold a diploma in order
                                                                      to operate a hairdressing salon, while permitting
                     of 16 February 1995                              hairdressers who are nationals of other Member States to
in Joined Cases C-29/94, C-30/94, C-31/94, C-32/94,                   operate a hairdressing salon without holding such a diploma
C-33/94, C-34/94 and C-35/94 (reference for a preliminary             and without being obliged to entrust its operation to a
ruling from the Tribunal de Grande Instance de                        manager holding that diploma.
Charleville-Mézières (France)): Criminal proceedings
against Jean-Louis Aubertin, Bernard Collignon, Guy                   (!) OJ No C 76, 12 . 3 . 1993 .
Creusot, Isabelle Diblanc, Gilles Josse, Jacqueline Martin,           (2 ) OJ No L 218 , 27. 7. 1982, p. 24 .
                     Claudie Normand ( 1 )
       (Hairdressers — Council Directive 82/489/EEC)
                          ( 95/C 87/01 )
                (Language of the case: French)                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be                               of 23 February 1995
          published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                      in Case C-334/93 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                      the Finanzgericht Diisseldorf): Bonapharma Arzneimittel
In Joined Cases C-29/94, C-30/94, C-31/94, C-32/94,                                GmbH v. Hauptzollamt Krefeld ( ! )
C-33/94, C-34/94 and C-35/94: reference to the Court                  (EEC — Austria free-trade agreement — Concept of
under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribunal de               originating product — Protocol 3 — Methods of
Grande Instance (Regional Court), Charleville-Mezieres                      administrative cooperation — EUR.l certificate)
( France ), for a preliminary ruling in the criminal
                                                                                ( 95/C 87/02
proceedings pending before that court against Jean-Louis
Aubertin, Bernard Collignon, Guy Creusot, Isabelle
Diblanc, Gilles Josse, Jacqueline Martin, Claudie Normand                            (Language of the case: German)
— on the interpretation of Council Directive 82/489/EEC of
 19 July 1982 laying down measures to facilitate the effective        (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                          published in the European Court Reports)
provide services in hairdressing (2 ) — the Court (Fourth
Chamber), composed of P.J.G. Kapteyn, President of the                In Case C-334/93 : reference to the Court under Article 177
Chamber, C.N. Kakouris ( Rapporteur), and J.L. Murray,
Judges; C.O. Lenz, Advocate-General; R.Grass, Registrar,              of the EEC Treaty by the Finanzgericht (Finance Court),
gave a judgment on 16 February 1995 , the operative part of           Diisseldorf, Germany for a preliminary ruling in the
which is as follows :                                                 proceedings pending before that court between
                                                                      Bonapharma Arzneimittel GmbH and Hauptzollamt
                                                                      Krefeld, on the interpretation of the Agreement between the
Community law, in particular Council Directive                        European Economic Community and the Republic of
 82/489/EEC of 19 July 1982 laying down measures to                   Austria, signed in Brussels on 22 July 1972 and approved by
facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment       Council Regulation (EEC) No 2836/72 of 19 December
and freedom to provide services in hairdressing, must be               1972 concluding an Agreement between the European


title: Case C-267/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 20 June 2006 — Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/20

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München (Germany) lodged on 20 June 2006 — Tadao Maruko v Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen
   (Case C-267/06)
   (2006/C 224/37)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht München
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Tadao Maruko

      Defendant: Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen
   Questions referred

               1.

               Is a compulsory professional pension scheme, such as the scheme at issue in this case administered by the Versorgungsanstalt der deutschen Bühnen, a scheme similar to state schemes as referred to in Article 3(3) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (1)?

               2.

               Are benefits paid by a compulsory professional pension institution to survivors in the form of widow's/widower's allowance to be construed as pay within the meaning of Article 3(1)(c) of Directive 2000/78/EC?

               3.

               Does Article 1 in conjunction with Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2000/78/EC preclude regulations governing a supplementary pension scheme of the kind at issue here under which a registered partner does not receive a survivor's pension after the death of the partner like spouses do, even though he also lives in a caring and committed union formally entered into for life like spouses?

               4.

               If the preceding questions are answered in the affirmative: Is discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation permissible by virtue of recital 22 in the preamble to Directive 2000/78/EC?

               5.

               Would entitlement to the survivor's pension be restricted to periods from 17 May 1990 in the light of the case-law in Barber (Case C-262/88)?

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16


title: Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-283/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 56(1) EC and 43 EC — Special shares ( golden shares ) of the Netherlands State in the companies KPN and TPG — Distinction between controlling holding , direct investment and portfolio investment in the context of fundamental freedoms — State measure for the purposes of fundamental freedoms — Guarantee of universal postal service)

text:
               2.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 294/6

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands
   (Joined Cases C-282/04 and C-283/04) (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations - Articles 56(1) EC and 43 EC - Special shares (‘golden shares’) of the Netherlands State in the companies KPN and TPG - Distinction between ‘controlling holding’, ‘direct investment’ and ‘portfolio investment’ in the context of fundamental freedoms - ‘State measure’ for the purposes of fundamental freedoms - Guarantee of universal postal service)
   (2006/C 294/10)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. Støvlbæk, A Nijenhuis and S. Noë, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands (represented by: H.G. Sevenster, J.G.M. van Bakel and M. De Grave, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Failure by a Member State to fulfil obligations — Articles 43 and 56 EC — Rights attached to the Netherlands State's special share in the company Koninklijke KPN NV
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               By maintaining in the statutes of KPN NV and TPG NV certain provisions, providing that the capital of those companies is to include a special share held by the Netherlands State, which confers on the latter special rights to approve certain management decisions of the organs of those companies, which are not limited to cases where the intervention of that State is necessary for overriding reasons in the general interest recognised by the Court and, in the case of TPG NV in particular for ensuring the maintenance of universal postal service, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 56(1) EC.

               2.

               The Kingdom of the Netherlands is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 217 of 28.08.2004