title: Case C-542/07 P: Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Imagination Technologies Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case T-461/04: Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

text:
               9.2.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 37/18

         Appeal brought on 30 November 2007 by Imagination Technologies Ltd against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) delivered on 20 September 2007 in Case T-461/04: Imagination Technologies Ltd v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   (Case C-542/07 P)
   (2008/C 37/25)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Imagination Technologies Ltd (represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

      Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance.

               —

               make an order for costs of and associated with this appeal before the Court of Justice and its appeal before the Court of First Instance.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The Appellant submits that the Community trade mark application No 2396075 for the word mark PURE DIGITAL (the ‘Application’) does not offend against either Article 7(1)(b) or 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as it has acquired a distinctive character since the Application was filed. It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in its analysis of the relevant law; in particular, it erred when it failed to hold that use after the filing date was relevant when considering the issue of acquired distinctiveness.
   Accordingly, the Court of First Instance was wrong to dismiss the appeal before it. Hence, it is submitted that this appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance ought to be allowed and its Judgment set aside. The Appellant also seeks its costs in these appeal proceedings and in the proceedings before the Court of First Instance.


title: Case C-78/05: Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno — Italy) — Umberto Gentilini v Dal Colle Industria Dolciaria SpA

text:
               16.9.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 224/32

         Order of the President of the Court of 14 June 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Livorno — Italy) — Umberto Gentilini v Dal Colle Industria Dolciaria SpA
   (Case C-78/05) (1)

   (2006/C 224/61)

      Language of the case: Italian

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

      (1)  OJ C 93, 16.04.2005.


title: Case C-92/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of G. Stilianakis against the Greek State

text:
19.5.2001              EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 150/11
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           Appeal brought on 26 February 2001 by the French
                                                                          Republic against the judgment delivered on 14 December
—     Breach of the principle of Community law relating to the            2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of
      concept of set-off between claims: the distinction drawn            the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
      by the Court of First Instance between ‘actual payment’             in Case T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express
      and payment by means of set-off does not exist in law,              (UFEX), DHL International, Federal Express International
      since those two methods of payment have the same legal              (France), CRIE and the Commission of the European
      and accounting consequences.                                        Communities, supported by the French Republic, Chrono-
                                                                                post SA and La Poste
—     Breach of the principle of the effectiveness of Community
      law: the Court of First Instance was wrong in concentrat-
      ing on the proper carrying out of the activities relating to
      the payments made by means of set-off without dwelling                                       (Case C-93/01 P)
      on the need to protect the Communities’ financial
      interests. The Court of First Instance did not explain,
      moreover, why set-off is more damaging, in respect of                                        (2001/C 150/21)
      the carrying out of the activities at issue, than enforced
      recovery. By stating that the non-payment of the sums
      intended for the activities at issue jeopardised the carrying       An appeal against the judgment delivered on 14 December
      out of those activities, the Court of First Instance distorted      2000 by the Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the
      the facts or failed, at least, to state the reasons for its         Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case
      observations whereas, indeed, it stated that the CEMR               T-613/97 between Union Française de l’Express (UFEX), DHL
      was not insolvent.                                                  International, Federal Express International (France), CRIE and
                                                                          the Commission of the European Communities, supported by
—     Breach of the principles of sound financial management              the French Republic, Chronopost SA and La Poste, was brought
      and the sound administration of justice: the Court of First         before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
      Instance failed to take account of the main purpose of              26 February 2001 by the French Republic, represented by
      set-off, which is economy of procedure and the saving of            G. de Bergues and F. Million, acting as Agents, with an address
      costs, not only in the context of mutual financial                  for service in Luxembourg.
      obligations, but also in the context of the sound adminis-
      tration of justice.
                                                                          The appellant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance;
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Monomeles
Dioikitiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Second Chamber) by                       —     order the UFEX to pay the costs incurred in the proceed-
judgment of that court of 31 October 2000 in the case of                        ings before the Court of Justice and make a fresh ruling
             G. Stilianakis against the Greek State                             in relation to the costs incurred in the proceedings before
                                                                                the Court of First Instance.
                           (Case C-92/01)
                          (2001/C 150/20)
                                                                          Pleas and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Monomeles Dioiki-
tiko Protodikeio Irakliou (Administrative Court of First                  —     Misinterpretation of ‘normal market conditions’: The
Instance, Heraklion), Second Chamber, of 31 October 2000,                       Court of First Instance erred in holding that when the
received at the Court Registry on 22 February 2001, for a                       Commission carried out an analysis of the economic
preliminary ruling in the case of G. Stilianakis against the                    factors on the basis of which it was considered possible
Greek State on the following question:                                          to assess whether remuneration was ‘normal’, it should
                                                                                have taken into account the implications for La Poste’s
Are Articles 8a and 59 of the EC Treaty and Article 3(1) of                     costs — hence on the remuneration requested from its
Council Regulation No 2408/92 (1) to be interpreted as                          subsidiary — of its structural situation (its reserved
prohibiting a Member State from imposing a differentiated                       sector).
fiscal charge on domestic and intra-Community flights with
the direct result that an amount of tax is charged on intra-
Community flights double that on flights within the Member                      The approach espoused by the Court of First Instance has
State?                                                                          no basis in reality, since a private operator with no
                                                                                reserved activities would never wish to equip itself with a
                                                                                network like the La Poste network, which was developed
(1) OJ L 240 of 24.8.1992, p. 8.                                                solely to meet the needs of the reserved sector. Moreover,
                                                                                no private operator desires access to the La Poste network,
                                                                                despite the allegedly cheaper rates offered.


title: Case C-274/04: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of  6 April 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) — ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Agriculture — Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 — Export refunds — Sanction applied following a decision to recover a refund that has become final — Possibility of re-examining the decision imposing a sanction)

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/10

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 6 April 2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg) — ED & F Man Sugar Ltd v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-274/04) (1)

   (Agriculture - Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 - Export refunds - Sanction applied following a decision to recover a refund that has become final - Possibility of re-examining the decision imposing a sanction)
   (2006/C 143/19)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: ED & F Man Sugar Ltd

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg (Finance Court) Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 11(1) and (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (OJ 1987 L 351, p. 1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994 (OJ 1994 L 310, p. 57) — Sanctions for requesting a refund in excess of that applicable — Whether national authorities or courts may re-examine, in the context of an action brought by an exporter against a decision imposing a sanction on him, the final decision ordering repayment of amounts wrongly received — Misinterpretation of Community law
   Operative part of the judgment
   The first subparagraph of Article 11(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3665/87 of 27 November 1987 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products, as amended by Commission Regulation No 2945/94 of 2 December 1994, must be interpreted as meaning that, in an appeal against a decision imposing a sanction on the basis of that provision, the national authorities and courts are entitled to examine whether the exporter requested a refund in excess of that applicable within the meaning of that provision, notwithstanding the fact that a reimbursement decision provided for in the first subparagraph of Article 11(3) of that Regulation has become final before the decision imposing a sanction was issued.

      (1)  OJ C 228, 11.9.2004


title: Case T-141/14: Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council

text:
               12.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 142/41

         Action brought on 28 February 2014 — SolarWorld and Others v Council
   (Case T-141/14)
   2014/C 142/54
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicants: SolarWorld AG (Bonn, Germany); Brandoni solare SpA (Castelfidardo, Italy); and Solaria Energia y Medio Ambiente, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: L. Ruessmann, lawyer, and J. Beck, Solicitor)

      Defendant: Council of the European Union

      Form of order sought

   The applicants claim that the Court should:

               —

               Declare the application admissible and well-founded;

               —

               Annul Article 3 of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 (1);

               —

               Join this case with Case T-507/13; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the applicants’ costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicants rely on three pleas in law.

               1.

               First plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the contested regulation reflects a manifest error of assessment, and violates Articles 8 of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation (2) to the extent it exempts from the measures Chinese producers from which the Commission accepted a joint undertaking in violation of the applicants’ right to a fair legal process and the principle of good administration, the applicants’ rights of defense, and Articles 8(4) and 19(2) of the Basic AD Regulation.

               2.

               Second plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the contested regulation reflects a manifest error of assessment, and violates Articles 8 of the Basic AD Regulation, to the extent it exempts from the measures Chinese producers from which the Commission accepted an unlawful joint undertaking.

               3.

               Third plea in law, alleging that Article 3 of the contested regulation violates Article 101(1) TFEU to the extent it grants certain Chinese producers an exemption from the measures in question on the basis of an undertaking offer, accepted and confirmed by Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU (3) and by Commission Decision 2013/423/EU (4), which is a horizontal price fixing arrangement.

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 1)

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community (OJ 2009 L 343, p. 51)

      (3)  Commission Implementing Decision 2013/707/EU of 4 December 2013 confirming the acceptance of an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China for the period of application of definitive measures (OJ 2013 L 325, p. 214)

      (4)  Commission Decision 2013/423/EU of 2 August 2013 accepting an undertaking offered in connection with the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) originating in or consigned from the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2013 L 209, p. 26)


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 1 October 1998 in Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark v. Commission of the European Communities (EAGGF - Clearance of accounts - 1992 and 1993 - Beef and veal)

text:
21.11.98             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 358/3
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                  European Communities (Agent: X. Lewis) Ð application
                       (Fifth Chamber)                               for the annulment in part of Commission Decision 96/311/
                                                                     EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of the accounts
                      of 1 October 1998                              presented by the Member States in respect of the
                                                                     expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
in Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark v. Commission
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
              of the European Communities (1)
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                        Beef and veal)                               Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
                         (98/C 358/05)                               Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
                                                                     Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
                                                                     Registrar, has given a judgment on 1 October 1998, in
               (Language of the case: Danish)
                                                                     which it:
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                    1. Dismisses the application;
In Case C-233/96: Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: P.
                                                                     2. Orders Ireland to pay the costs.
Biering) v. Commission of the European Communities
(Agent: H. P. Hartvig) Ð application for the annulment in
part of Commission Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996               (1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
on the clearance of the accounts presented by the Member
States in respect of the expenditure for 1992 of the
Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance
and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and in respect of certain
expenditure for 1993 (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann,
President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C.
Moitinho de Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón,                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Judges; S. Alber, Advocate-General; L. Hewlett,                                             (Fifth Chamber)
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1 October 1998, in which it:                                                               of 1 October 1998
                                                                               in Case C-242/96: Italy v. Commission (1)
1. Dismisses the application;
                                                                     (EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð
                                                                                Beef and veal)
2. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                                (98/C 358/07)
(1) OJ C 269, 14.9.1996.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                           published in the European Court Reports)
                       (Fifth Chamber)
                      of 1 October 1998                              In Case C-242/96: Italian Republic (Agents: U. Leanza
in Case C-238/96: Ireland v. Commission of the European              and M. Fiorilli) v. Commission of the European
                       Communities (1)                               Communities (Agents: E. de March and P. Ziotti) Ð
                                                                     application for the annulment in part of Commission
(EAGGF Ð Clearance of accounts Ð 1992 and 1993 Ð                     Decision 96/311/EC of 10 April 1996 on the clearance of
                        Beef and veal)                               the accounts presented by the Member States in respect of
                                                                     the expenditure for 1992 of the Guarantee Section of the
                         (98/C 358/06)
                                                                     European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund
                                                                     (EAGGF) and in respect of certain expenditure for 1993
               (Language of the case: English)                       (OJ L 117, 14.5.1996, p. 19) Ð the Court (Fifth
                                                                     Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the
                                                                     Chamber, M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), J. C. Moitinho de
In Case 238/96: Ireland (Agent: M. A. Buckley, assisted by           Almeida, J.-P. Puissochet and L. Sevón, Judges; S. Alber,
M. Finlay, SC, and D. Barniville) v. Commission of the               Advocate-General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 5 June 1997 in Case C-223/96: Commission of the European Communities v. French Republic (Failure to fulfil obligations - Directive 91/156/EEC)

text:
No C 228/4              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                     26 . 7 . 97
2 . orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Sixth Chamber)
O OJ No C 158 , 1 . 6 . 1996 .
                                                                                of 12 June 1997
                                                                        in Case C-266/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Bundessozialgericht): Pascual Merino Garcia v. Bun
                                                                                desanstalt fur Arbeit ( l )
                                                                        (Social security of migrant workers — Regulation (EEC)
                                                                        No 1408/71 — Persons covered — 'Employed persons ' —
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                           Family benefits)
                          (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                ( 97/C 228/08 )
                           of 5 June 1997
in     Case   C-223/96: Commission of the European                                     (Language of the case: German)
              Communities v. French Republic ( l )
    (Failure to fulfil obligations — Directive 91/156/EEC)
                            ( 97/C 228/07 )                               (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                                published in the European Court Reports)
                 (Language of the case: French)
                                                                        In Case C-266/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                                                                        of the EC Treaty from the Bundessozialgericht ( Federal
                                                                        Social Court) ( Germany ) for a preliminary ruling in the
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be          proceedings pending before that court between Pascual
           published in the European Court Reports)                     Merino Garcia and Bundesanstalt fur Arbeit — on the
                                                                        interpretation and validity of Point I ( C ) of Annex I to
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971
                                                                        on the application of social security schemes to employed
In Case C-223/96 : Commission of the European
                                                                        persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their
Communities ( Agent: M. Kondou Durande, assisted by                     families moving within the Community, as amended and
J. -J. Evrard, of the Brussels Bar ) v. French Republic
                                                                        updated by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 2001 /83 of
( Agents: C. de Salins, and R. Nadal ) — application for a
                                                                        2 June 1983 ( OJ No L 230, 22 . 8 . 1983 , p. 6 ), as
declaration that, by not adopting the laws, regulations and             amended by Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 3427/89 of
administrative provisions necessary to comply with
Council      Directive    91 / 156/EEC    of  18   March     1991
                                                                        30 October 1989 ( OJ No L 331 , 16 . 11 . 1989, p. 1 ) —
                                                                        the Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini
amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste ( OJ No L 78 ,                   ( Rapporteur ), President of the Chamber, C. N. Kakouris,
26 . 3 . 1991 , p. 32 ), or by not communicating those                  G. Hirsch, H. Ragnemalm and R. Schintgen, Judges; N.
measures, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                                                                        Fennelly, Advocate-General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
obligations under that Directive — the Court ( Fifth                    Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
Chamber ), composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida ,                     12 June 1997, in which it has ruled:
President of the Chamber, L. Sevon ( Rapporteur), D. A. O.
Edward, P. Jann and M. Wathelet, Judges; P. Leger,
Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
judgment on 5 June 1997, in which it:                                   In accordance with Article 73 of Council Regulation
                                                                        (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of
                                                                        social security schemes to employed persons, to self
                                                                        employed persons and to members of their families
1 . declares that, by not adopting the laws, regulations                moving within the Community, as amended and updated
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply                 by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001 /83 of 2 June 1983 ,
      with Council Directive 91 /156/EEC of 18 March 1991               as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 3427/89 of
      amending Directive 75/442/EEC on waste, the French                30 October 1989, the expression 'employed persons ' must
      Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under               be construed as designating only employed persons who
      Article 2 (1 ) of that Directive;                                 satisfy the definition resulting from the combined
                                                                        provisions of Article 1 (a) (ii) of the Regulation and
                                                                        Point I (C) of Annex I thereto, for the purposes of paying
2 . orders the French Republic to pay the costs.                        family benefits under the German legislation.
                                                                        Furthermore, consideration of the questions referred has
                                                                        not disclosed any factor such as to cast doubt on the
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                       validity of the said Annex. However, Article 48 (2) of the
                                                                        EC Treaty must be interpreted as precluding the
                                                                        application of national legislation which results in an
                                                                        employed person whose children are domiciled in another


title: Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on 11 July 2000

text:
12.8.2000             EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 233/1
                                                                   I
                                                             (Information)
                                                COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                         COURT OF JUSTICE
Assumption of duties by a new Judge of the Court of                    2.     In addition, as regards the period from 15 July 2000 to
                              Justice                                  6 October 2000, the list on the basis of which the composition
                                                                       of the Sixth Chamber is determined, as set out in point 4 of
                        (2000/C 233/01)                                the decision adopted by the Court at its meeting on 6 October
                                                                       1999 (1), has been amended as follows:
Following her appointment as Judge of the Court of Justice of
the European Communities by decision of the Governments                   Sixth Chamber
of the Member States of the European Communities of 22 June
2000 (1), Ms Ninon Colneric took her oath before the Court                (President: Mr Moitinho de Almeida)
on 14 July 2000.
                                                                          Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Ms Macken, Mr Schintgen,
                                                                          Mr Skouris, and Ms Colneric, Judges.
(1) OJ L 164 of 5.7.2000, p. 16.
                                                                       (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999, p. 1.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its general meeting on
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                          11 July 2000
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                        (2000/C 233/02)
                                                                                of 11 May 2000
The Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted
the following decisions at its meeting on 11 July 2000:                in Case C-56/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                       the Tribunal Administratif de Paris): Gascogne Limousin
                                                                       Viandes SA v Office national interprofessionnel des
Assignment of Judge Colneric                                                 viandes de l’élevage et de l’aviculture (Ofival) (1)
Ms Colneric is assigned to the Second and Sixth Chambers.              (Beef and veal — Premium for early marketing of calves —
                                                                       Grant thereof dependent on average carcase weight of calves
                                                                       slaughtered in each Member State during 1995 — Validity
Composition of the Sixth Chamber                                       under Article 40(3) of the EC Treaty (now, following amend-
                                                                                ment, Article 34(2) EC)
1.    The composition of the Sixth Chamber for the period
from 15 July 2000 to 6 October 2000 has been determined as                                       (2000/C 233/03)
follows:
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
   Sixth Chamber
                                                                       (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
   Mr Moitinho de Almeida, President of the Chamber,                                      in the European Court Reports)
   Mr Schintgen, Mr Gulmann, Mr Puissochet, Mr Skouris,                In Case C-56/99: Reference to the Court under Article 177
   Ms Macken and Ms Colneric, Judges.                                  (now Article 234 EC) of the EC Treaty by the Tribunal


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT of 12 May 1998 in Case C-170/96: Commission of the European Communities, supported by the European Parliament v Council of the European Union, supported by the Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Act of the Council - Joint action regarding airport transit visas - Legal basis)

text:
25.7.98               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 234/5
seeking to overcome social exclusion Ð the Court,                    Bellanger, Head of Subdirectorate in the same Directorate,
composed of: G. C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C.                 and Claude Chavance, Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the
Gulmann, H. Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen                     same Directorate, the United Kingdom of Great Britain
(Presidents of Chambers), G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho              and Northern Ireland, represented by John E. Collins Ð
de Almeida (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward,              application for annulment of the Joint Action of 4 March
J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann and L. Sevón, Judges;           1996 adopted by the Council on the basis of Article K.3
G. Tesauro, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator,             of the Treaty on European Union on airport transit
for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 May 1998,              arrangements (96/197/JAI) (OJ 1996 L 63 of 19.3.1996,
in which it:                                                         p. 8) Ð the Court (Chamber), composed of: G. C.
                                                                     Rodríguez Iglesias, President, C. Gulmann, H.
                                                                     Ragnemalm, M. Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Presidents of
1. Annuls the decision referred to in the Commission's
                                                                     Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,
     press release of 23 January 1996 (IP/96/67)
                                                                     P. J. G. Kapteyn, (Rapporteur), J. L. Murray, D. A. O.
     announcing certain grants for European projects
                                                                     Edward, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann, L. Sevón and
     seeking to overcome social exclusion;
                                                                     K. M. Ioannou, Judges; N. Fennelly, Advocate General; D.
                                                                     Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Administrator, for the
2. Declares that the annulment of the abovementioned                 Registrar Ð has given a judgment on 12 May 1998, in
     decision shall not affect the validity of payments made         which it:
     or undertakings given under the contracts in issue;
                                                                     1. Dismisses the application;
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
     to pay the costs;                                               2. Orders the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                          to pay the costs;
4. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany, the                       3. Orders the Kingdom of Denmark, the French
     Kingdom of Denmark, the Council of the European                      Republic, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
     Union and the European Parliament to bear their own                  Northern Ireland and the Parliament to bear their
     costs.                                                               own costs.
(1) OJ C 145 of 18.5.1996.                                           (1) OJ C 210 of 20.7.1996.
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        of 12 May 1998                                                      of 12 May 1998
                                                                     in Case C-367/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
in Case C-170/96: Commission of the European
                                                                     the Efeteio Ð Athinon): Alexandros Kefalas and Others v
Communities, supported by the European Parliament v
                                                                     Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State), Organismos Ikonomikis
Council of the European Union, supported by the
                                                                     Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE), intervener
Kingdom of Denmark, French Republic and the United
                                                                                Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and Others (1)
     Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1)
                                                                     (Company law Ð Public limited liability company in
(Act of the Council Ð Joint action regarding airport
                                                                     financial difficulties Ð Increase in the capital of the
                  transit visas Ð Legal basis)
                                                                     company by administrative decision Ð Abusive exercise of
                         (98/C 234/08)                                   a right arising from a provision of Community law)
                                                                                (98/C 234/09)
                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
          published in the European Court Reports)                            published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-170/96: Commission of the European                         In Case C-367/96: reference to the Court under Article 177
Communities, represented by Pieter van Nuffel, supported             of the EC Treaty from the Efeteio Ð Athinon for a
by the European Parliament, represented by Johann                    preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
Schoo, Head of Division in the Legal Service, and JoseÂ-             court between Alexandros Kefalas and Others and
Luis Rufas Quintana, v Council of the European Union,                Elliniko Dimosio (Greek State), Organismos Ikonomikis
represented by Julian Schutte, Director of the Legal                 Anasinkrotisis Epikhiriseon AE (OAE), intervener
Service, and Michael Bishop, supported by the Kingdom                Athinaiki Khartopiia AE and Others, on the interpretation
of Denmark, represented by Peter Biering, the French                 of Article 25 of the Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC
Republic, represented initially by Catherine de Salins,              of 13 December 1976 on coordination of safeguards
Head of Subdirectorate in the Legal Affairs Directorate of           which, for the protection of the interests of members and
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, then by Kareen Rispal-              others, are required by Member States of companies


title: Case T-558/14: Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community word mark TRILOBULAR — Absolute ground for refusal — Descriptive character — Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009)

text:
               11.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 7/26

         Judgment of the General Court of 18 November 2015 — Research Engineering & Manufacturing v OHIM — Nedschroef Holding (TRILOBULAR)
   (Case T-558/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word mark TRILOBULAR - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 007/36)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc. (Middletown, Rhode Island, United States) (represented by: S. Malynicz, G. Hollingworth, Barristers, K. Gilbert and M. Gilbert, Solicitors)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Nedschroef Holding BV (Helmond, Netherlands)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 May 2014 (Case R 442/2013-4), relating to invalidity proceedings between Nedschroef Holding BV and Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders Research Engineering & Manufacturing, Inc., to bear the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 351, 6.10.2014.


title: Judgment of the Court of 9 April 2015 in Case E-16/14 — Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV (Veterinary medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Concept of ‘first authorisation to place a product on the market’ in the European Economic Area — Active ingredient)

text:
               22.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 350/8

         JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
   of 9 April 2015
   in Case E-16/14
   Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV
   (Veterinary medicinal products — Supplementary protection certificate — Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 — Concept of ‘first authorisation to place a product on the market’ in the European Economic Area — Active ingredient)
   (2015/C 350/11)
   In Case E-16/14, Pharmaq AS v Intervet International BV — REQUEST to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the Establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court) concerning the interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92 of 18 June 1992 concerning the creation of a supplementary protection certificate for medicinal products, the Court, composed of Carl Baudenbacher, President, Per Christiansen and Páll Hreinsson (Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave judgment on 9 April 2015, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               Under Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, a supplementary protection certificate for a veterinary medicinal product may be granted in an EEA State on the basis of a marketing authorisation granted in that State pursuant to the administrative authorisation procedure set out in Title III of Directive 2001/82/EC, including the procedure for authorisation in exceptional circumstances under Article 26(3) of that directive. Such a marketing authorisation constitutes a valid authorisation and, where appropriate, may also constitute the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a veterinary medicinal product within the meaning of Article 3(b) and (d) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92.
               Permissions granted on the basis of the first paragraph of Article 8 of Directive 2001/82/EC do not constitute a marketing authorisation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92. That derogating provision strictly limits the use of the measures permitted under it, stating that it applies only in the event of serious epizootic diseases, in the absence of suitable medicinal products and after informing the EFTA Surveillance Authority of the detailed conditions of use.
               The determination of whether ‘special approval exemptions’ or ‘AR 16 licences’, granted respectively by Norwegian and Irish authorities between 2003 and 2011, and the provisional marketing authorisation granted in the United Kingdom in 2005 were issued pursuant to national provisions implementing the first paragraph of Article 8 or Article 26(3) of Directive 2001/82/EC depends essentially on the assessment of the facts in the national proceedings, which is a matter for the national court.

               2.

               Pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, the scope of protection conferred by a supplementary protection certificate extends to a specific strain of a virus covered by the basic patent, but not referred to in the marketing authorisation for a virus vaccine relied on for the purposes of Article 3(b) of Regulation (EEC) No 1768/92, only if the specific strain constitutes the same active ingredient as the authorised medicinal product and has therapeutic effects falling within the therapeutic indications for which the marketing authorisation was granted. It is not relevant whether a medicinal product based on such other strain would require a separate marketing authorisation. The appreciation of such elements is a matter of fact which is to be determined by the national court.
               A supplementary protection certificate is invalid to the extent it is granted a wider scope than that set out in the relevant marketing authorisation.


title: Judgment of the Court of 6 June 2000 in Case C-35/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooĳen (Free movement of capital — Direct taxation of share dividends — Exemption — Limitation to shares in companies whose seat is within national territory)

text:
26.8.2000                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 247/5
2.    Dismisses the remainder of the action;                               The position is not in any way changed by the fact that the taxpayer
                                                                           applying for such a tax exemption is an ordinary shareholder or an
3.    Orders the Italian Republic and the Commission of the                employee who holds shares giving rise to the payment of dividends
      European Communities to bear their own costs.                        under an employees’ savings plan.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 137 of 2.5.1998.
(1) OJ C 48 of 20.2.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                               of 6 June 2000
                            of 6 June 2000                                 in Case C-281/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Pretore di Bolzano): Roman Angonese v Cassa di
                                                                                Risparmio di Bolzano SpA (1)
in Case C-35/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Staatssecretaris van                       (Freedom of movement for persons — Access to employment
               Financiën v B.G.M. Verkooijen (1)                           — Certificate of bilingualism issued by a local authority —
                                                                           Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,
(Free movement of capital — Direct taxation of share                         Article 39 EC) — Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68)
dividends — Exemption — Limitation to shares in companies
             whose seat is within national territory)                                                (2000/C 247/08)
                           (2000/C 247/07)                                                     (Language of the case: Italian)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                         (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published     In Case C-281/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
                    in the European Court Reports)                         the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Pretore di
                                                                           Bolzano, Italy, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings
                                                                           pending before that court between Roman Angonese and
In Case C-35/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of               Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano — on the interpretation of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der                  Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39
Nederlanden for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings                    EC) and Articles 3(1) and 7(1) and (4) of Regulation (EEC)
pending before that court between Staatssecretaris van Financi-            No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom
ën and B.G.M. Verkooijen — on the interpretation of Council                of movement for workers within the Community (Official
Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the implementation                Journal, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475) — the Court,
of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178, p. 5) and of                   composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, D.A.O. Ed-
Articles 6 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment,                  ward, L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers,
Articles 12 EC and 43 EC) — the Court, composed of:                        P.J.G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, G. Hirsch, P. Jann,
G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, J.C. Moitinho de Almeida,             H. Ragnemalm (Rapporteur) and M. Wathelet, Judges; N. Fen-
L. Sevón and R. Schintgen, Presidents of Chambers, P.J.G. Kap-            nelly, Advocate General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the
teyn, C. Gulmann, J.-P. Puissochet, P. Jann, H. Ragnemalm,                 Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000, in which it
M. Wathelet (Rapporteur) and F. Macken, Judges; A. La Pergola,             has ruled:
Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Principal Adminis-
trator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 6 June 2000,            Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC)
in which it has ruled:                                                     precludes an employer from requiring persons applying to take part
                                                                           in a recruitment competition to provide evidence of their linguistic
Article 1(1) of Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for           knowledge exclusively by means of one particular diploma issued only
the implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty precludes a legislative     in one particular province of a Member State.
provision of a Member State which, like the one at issue in the main
proceedings, makes the grant of an exemption from the income tax           (1) OJ C 278 of 5.9.1998.
payable on dividends paid to natural persons who are shareholders
subject to the condition that those dividends are paid by a company
whose seat is in that Member State.


title: Case C-400/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2007 — S.A.L.F. Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute

text:
               10.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 269/32

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio (Italy) lodged on 29 August 2007 — S.A.L.F. Spa v Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA) and Ministero della Salute
   (Case C-400/07)
   (2007/C 269/55)
   Language of the case: Italian
   Referring court
   Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale del Lazio
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: S.A.L.F. Spa

      Defendants: Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco (AIFA), Ministero della Salute
   Question referred

               1.

               After the provisions contained in Articles 2 and 3 (1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] which modulate the relationship between the public authorities of a Member State and the pharmaceutical companies — by allowing the pricing of a medicinal product or the raising of its price to be determined on the basis of information provided by the [latter], but only in so far as is acceptable to the competent authority, and thus on the basis of dialogue between the undertakings themselves and the authorities competent to supervise pharmaceutical expenditure — Article 4(1) [of that Directive] concerning ‘price freeze[s] imposed on all medicinal products or on certain categories of medicinal products’ characterises a price freeze as a general instrument, the continuing use of which is conditional upon a review which must be carried out, at least once a year, with reference to the macro-economic conditions existing in the Member State in question.
               That provision allows the competent authorities a period of 90 days in which to take a final decision, requiring them, on expiry of that period, to announce what increases or decreases in prices are being made, if any.
               On a proper construction of the reference to ‘decreases in prices … being made, if any’, is that provision to be interpreted as meaning that, as well as the general remedy of freezing the prices of all categories, or certain specific categories, of medicinal product, another general remedy may be applied in the form of a reduction in the prices of all categories, and of certain specific categories, of medicinal product, or must ‘decreases …, if any’ be interpreted as referring exclusively to the medicinal products which are already subject to the price freeze?

               2.

               In requiring the competent authorities of a Member State to verify, at least once a year, in the case of price freezes, whether the macroeconomic conditions justify continuing that price freeze, may Article 4(1) [of Directive 89/105/EC] be interpreted as meaning that, if the reply to Question I is that a price reduction is permissible, it is possible to have recourse to such a measure even more than once in the course of a single year, and to do that again for many years (from 2002 until 2010)?

               3.

               Under the terms of Article 4 [of Directive 89/105/EC] — read in the light of the preamble emphasising that the principal aim of measures controlling the prices of medicinal products is ‘the promotion of public health by ensuring the availability of adequate supplies of medicinal products at a reasonable cost’ and preventing‘disparities in such measures [which] may hinder or distort intra-Community trade in medicinal products’ — is it compatible with the Community rules to adopt measures which refer to economic values attributed to that expenditure on the basis of ‘predictions’ rather than values which have been ‘ascertained’ (this question relates to both situations)?

               4.

               Must the requirements relating to compliance with the ceilings for pharmaceutical expenditure which each Member State is competent to determine be linked, point by point, to pharmaceutical expenditure alone, or is it within the powers of the Member States to take account also of data relating to other health expenditure?

               5.

               Must the principles, to be inferred from … Directive [89/105/EC], of transparency and of shared participation on the part of the undertakings with an interest in measures freezing the prices of pharmaceutical products or reducing them across the board be interpreted as requiring provision to be made, always and in any circumstances, for the possibility of derogation from the price imposed (Article 4(2) [of Directive 89/105/EC]) and for genuine participation by the applicant company, with the consequent need for the administrative authorities to state the reasons for any refusal?

      (1)  Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems (OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8).


title: Case C-142/14 P: Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — The Sunrider Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (Appeal — Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of word mark SUN FRESH — Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark SUNNY FRESH — Likelihood of confusion — Similarity of the goods covered by the marks at issue — Right to be heard — Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76)

text:
               28.9.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 320/6

         Order of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 3 June 2015 — The Sunrider Corporation v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG
   (Case C-142/14 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for registration of word mark SUN FRESH - Opposition by the proprietor of the earlier Community word mark SUNNY FRESH - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods covered by the marks at issue - Right to be heard - Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 8(1)(b), 75 and 76))
   (2015/C 320/08)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: The Sunrider Corporation (represented by: N. Dontas and E. Markakis, dikigoroi)

      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Bullock, acting as Agent), Nannerl GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: A. Thünken, Rechtsanwalt)

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               The Sunrider Corporation shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.


title: Action brought on 19 December 1997 by the Commission of the European Communities against Ireland (Case C-431/97)

text:
20.2.98                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   C 55/19
The Commission claims that the Court should:                          Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
                                                                      Köln by order of that court of 3 September 1997 in the
                                                                              case of Jutta Johann against Hartmut Johann
                                                                                (Case C-430/97)
Ð declare that, by refusing to refund VAT to taxable
     persons not established in France, in cases where those                                   (98/C 55/36)
     persons had sub-contracted part of their work to a
     taxable person established in France, the French
     Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the          Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     eighth VAT Directive 79/1072/EEC (1), especially                 European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht Köln
     Article 2 thereof,                                               (Local Court, Cologne) of 3 September 1997, received at
                                                                      the Court Registry on 19 December 1997, for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the case of Jutta Johann v. Hartmut
                                                                      Johann on the following questions:
Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                      1. Do the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
                                                                          Communities, and in particular Annex VIII thereto
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                       (pension scheme) constitute a comprehensive and
                                                                          definitive determination of pension claims by a
                                                                          divorced wife, which excludes further claims under
                                                                          national law (in this case apportionment of pension
The Commission rejects the interpretation of Article 9(2)(c)              rights under the German law of obligations)?
of the sixth Directive (2) by the French authorities, who
reduce' the concept of the supply of services in
eliminating waste to the mere execution of works on                   2. Is it compatible with the Staff Regulations of officials
corporeal movable goods which are to be taxed at the                      of the European Communities and Article 6 of the EC
place where they are physically carried out. Such an                      Treaty for the divorce law of a Member State (in this
interpretation of the supply of services in eliminating                   case Germany), by burdening an official with a claim
waste, where such services are cross-frontier by nature,                  under the law of obligations for pension
results in a unilateral and arbitrary allocation of the right             apportionment, to place a heavier burden on that
to tax to the Member State in which the supplier of                       official solely on the ground that he is of German
services holding the main contract is established.                        nationality?
Moreover, the French authorities' approach generates
considerable legal uncertainty not only for the operator in
question in determining for his clients' purposes the VAT
regime of his supply under the contract, but also for the
tax authorities of the Member State in which that taxable
person is established. Such a conception has the effect of
creating potential situations of double taxation which the            Action brought on 19 December 1997 by the Commission
rules of Article 9, and Article 9(1) in particular, allow to                  of the European Communities against Ireland
be avoided by ensuring uniform, homogeneous and                                              (Case C-431/97)
rational taxation of the supplies of services in question
within the Community. Finally, for the purposes of                                             (98/C 55/37)
determining the place of taxation, the French authorities
effectively re-read or interpret the contract made between
the holder of the main contract and his client, without the           An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of
authorities of the Member State in which that supplier of             Justice of the European Communities on 19 December
services is taxable having been in a position to determine            1997 by the Commission of the European Communities,
whether or not that interpretation was capable of                     represented by Mr Berend Jan Drijber, a member of the
adversely affecting their own fiscal competence as defined            Legal Service, acting as Agent, with an address for service
within the scope of Article 9 of the sixth Directive, and             in Luxembourg at the office of Mr Carlos Gómez de la
Article 9(1) in particular.                                           Cruz, a member of its Legal Service, Centre Wagner.
                                                                      The applicant claims that the Court should:
(1) Eighth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð arrangements
    for the refund of value added tax to taxable persons not
                                                                      Ð declare that, in failing to adopt the laws, regulations
    established in the territory of the country (OJ L 331,
    27.12.1979, p. 11).
                                                                          or administrative provisions necessary to comply with
(2) Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of           Council Directive 94/57/EC of 22 November 1994 on
    the Member States relating to turnover taxes Ð common                 common rules and standards for ship inspection and
    system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ            survey organisations and for the relevant activities of
    L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).                                              maritime administrations (1), Ireland has failed to fulfil
                                                                          its obligations under this Directive and the Treaty,
                                                                      Ð order Ireland to pay the costs.
 ---pagebreak--- C 55/20               EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   20.2.98
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:                  Directive (in conjunction with Annex F, No 26) and the
                                                                     different ways in which gold is treated for tax purposes in
                                                                     certain Member States lead to distortions of competition.
Article 189 of the EC Treaty, under which a Directive                Consequently, the Commission submitted, as long ago as
shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each         28 October 1992, a proposal for a Directive relating to
Member State, carries by implication an obligation on the            special arrangements applicable to gold, which provides
Member States to observe the period for compliance laid              for the general exemption from tax of transactions in
down in the Directive. That period expired on                        respect of what is known as investment gold and for the
31 December 1995 without Ireland having enacted the                  repeal of the abovementioned transitional rules; but no
provisions necessary to comply with the Directive referred           Directive in those terms has to date been adopted by the
to in the conclusions of the Commission.                             Council. However, the issue in the present case is not
                                                                     whether the tax exemption in question has or has not
(1) OJ L 319, 12.12.1994, p. 20.                                     proved to be necessary in order to protect the German
                                                                     gold market but rather the fact that that tax exemption
                                                                     does not constitute a means of preventing the effects of
                                                                     existing distortions of competition on the national market
                                                                     for which provision is made by the sixth Directive.
Action brought on 22 December 1997 by the Commission                 Lastly, the Federal Republic of Germany wrongly relies on
of the European Communities against the Federal                      the declaration of the Council and the Commission on
                    Republic of Germany                              Article 1(1)(e) of Council Directive 72/77/EEC on the
                       (Case C-432/97)                               approximation of VAT rates. That declaration must be
                                                                     read in conjunction with the provision to which it relates,
                          (98/C 55/38)                               namely Article 12(3)(e) of the sixth Directive. The third
                                                                     and fourth sentences of that provision require the Member
                                                                     States from 1 January 1993 to take all necessary measures
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                to combat fraud in the field of the taxation of transactions
brought before the Court of Justice of the European                  in a respect of gold (including, in particular, a system
Communities on 22 December 1997 by the Commission                    giving the buyer the right to deduct tax). That provision
of the European Communities, represented by Enrico                   affords no basis for the conferral on the Member States of
Traversa, of its Legal Service, and Andreas Buschmann, a             any more extensive powers. According to the case-law of
national expert on secondment to its Legal Service, with             the Court of Justice, however, a declaration cannot be
an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of                invoked for the purposes of interpreting a provision of
Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, of its Legal Service, Wagner                Community law where the content of the declaration does
Centre C 254, Kirchberg.                                             not find expression in the provision in question and thus
                                                                     has no legal significance.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                     (1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.
Ð declare that, by exempting from value added tax
    transactions in gold bars, gold coins ranking as legal
    tender and unprocessed gold and the negotiation of
    such transactions, the Federal Republic of Germany
    has failed to fulfil its obligations pursuant to Articles 2
    and 28a(1)(a) of the sixth Council Directive 77/388/             Appeal brought on 22 December 1997 by IPK München
    EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                   GmbH against the judgment delivered on 15 October
    laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes             1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
    Ð common systems of value added tax: uniform basis               of the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between
    of assessment (1), as most recently amended,                     IPK München GmbH and the Commission of the
                                                                                European Communities
Ð order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                                         (Case C-433/97 P)
    costs.
                                                                                (98/C 55/39)
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
                                                                     An appeal against the judgment delivered on 15 October
The sixth Directive affords no basis for the exemption               1997 by the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance
provision introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany,             of the European Communities in Case T-331/94 between
with effect from 1 January 1993, as paragraph 4(8)(K) of             IPK München GmbH and the Commission of the
the Umsatzsteuergesetz (Law on turnover taxes).                      European Communities was brought before the Court of
                                                                     Justice of the European Communities on 22 December
                                                                     1997 by IPK München GmbH, represented by Hans-
The Commission is conscious of the fact that the                     Joachim Prieû, Rechtsanwalt, 13 place des Barricades,
transitional rules contained in Article 28(3)(b) of the sixth        B-1000 Brussels.


title: Judgment of of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 October 2001 in Case C-326/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting "Goed Wonen" v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (Sixth VAT Directive — Power of a Member State to treat certain rights in rem in immovable property as tangible property capable of supply — Restriction of the exercise of that power to cases where the price of the right in rem is at least equal to the economic value of the property concerned — Letting and leasing of immovable property — Exemptions)

text:
C 331/4                  EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                          24.11.2001
               JUDGMENT OF OF THE COURT                                           constructies met betrekking tot onroerende zaken (Law to
                                                                                prevent artificial arrangements relating to immovable property)
                                                                                of 18 December 1995, whereby classification as a ‘supply of
                           (Fifth Chamber)                                        goods’ of the grant, transfer, modification, waiver or termination
                                                                                of rights in rem in immovable property is made subject to the
                                                                                condition that the total considerations, plus turnover tax, must
                         of 4 October 2001                                        amount to at least the economic value of the immovable
                                                                                property to which those rights in rem relate.
in Case C-326/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                   2.    On a proper construction of Article 13B(b) and C(a) of
the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden): Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’                            Directive 77/388/EEC, it does not preclude adoption of a
               v Staatssecretaris van Financiën (1)                               national provision such as Article 11(1)(b), point 5, of the
                                                                                VAT Law of 28 June 1968, as amended by the Law of
                                                                                18 December 1995, which, for the purposes of the application
                                                                                of the exemption from value added tax, allows the grant, for an
(Sixth VAT Directive — Power of a Member State to treat                           agreed period and for payment, of a right in rem entitling the
certain rights in rem in immovable property as tangible
                                                                                holder to use immovable property, such as the usufructuary
property capable of supply — Restriction of the exercise of                       right in question in the present case, to be treated as the leasing
that power to cases where the price of the right in rem is at
                                                                                or letting of immovable property.
least equal to the economic value of the property concerned —
Letting and leasing of immovable property — Exemptions)
                                                                            (1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                           (2001/C 331/05)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                        JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 4 October 2001
In Case C-326/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Hoge Raad der                   in Case C-438/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
Nederlanden (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) (Nether-                     the Juzgado de lo Social Único de Algeciras): Maria Luisa
lands), for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending                      Jiménez Melgar v Ayuntamiento de Los Barrios (1)
before that court between Stichting ‘Goed Wonen’ and Staats-
secretaris van Financiën — on the interpretation of Article 5(3)
and Article 13B(b) and C(a) of the Sixth Council Directive                  (Protection of pregnant women — Directive 92/85/EEC —
(77/338/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the                     Article 10 — Direct effect and scope — Dismissal — Fixed-
laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes —                                         term contract of employment)
Common system of value added tax; uniform basis of assess-
ment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1) — the Court, composed of: A. La                                              (2001/C 331/06)
Pergola (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Wathelet,
D.A.O. Edward, P. Jann and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges;
F.G. Jacobs, Advocate General; D. Louterman-Hubeau, Head of                                      (Language of the case: Spanish)
Division, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 October
2001, in which it has ruled:                                                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
1.    On a proper construction of Article 5(3)(b) of the Sixth
      Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977 on the
      harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to            In Case C-438/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
      turnover tax — Common system of value added tax: uniform              the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Juzgado de lo
      basis of assessment, it does not preclude adoption of a national      Social Único de Algeciras (Social Court, Algeciras), (Spain) for
      provision, such as Article 3(2) of the Wet houdende vervanging        a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
      van de bestaande omzetbelasting door een omzetbelasting               court between Maria Luisa Jiménez Melgar and Ayuntamiento
      volgens het stelsel van heffing over de toegevoegde waarde (Law       de Los Barrios — on the interpretation of Article 10 of Council
      replacing turnover tax by the system of taxing added value) of        Directive 92/85/EEC of 19 October 1992 on the introduction
      28 June 1968, as amended by the Wet ter bestrijding van               of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Sixth Chamber) of 19 January 1995 in Joined Cases C-351/93, C-352/93 and C-353/93 (references for preliminary rulings from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Fitmay Ltd and H. A. van der Linde v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij and Tracotex Holland BV v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij (Common organization of the market in products processed from fruit and vegetables - Import into the Community of dried grapes and Morello cherries - Countervailing charge if the minimum import price is not respected - Determination of the actual import price - Extent of the powers of the authorities of the Member States)

text:
 No C 54/4             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       4. 3 . 95
Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to fulfil its                   C-351/93 ) the interpretation and validity of Article 2 ( 3 ) of
obligations under the EC Treaty — the Court ( Fifth                   Commission Regulation (EEC ) No 2237/85 of 30 July 1985
Chamber), composed of: C. Gulmann, President of the                   laying down detailed rules for the application of the
Third Chamber, acting as President of the Fifth Chamber,              minimum import price system for dried grapes (2) and on the
J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, D. A. O. Edward (Rapporteur),              interpretation of Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC)
Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar,            No 426/86 of 24 February 1986 on the common
has given a judgment on 17 January 1995, in which it:                 organization of the market in products processed from fruit
                                                                      and vegetables ( 3 ); on (in Case C-352/93 ) the interpretation
                                                                      of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 994/88 of 15 April
 1 . declares that, by failing to adopt the measures necessary
                                                                      1988 on the application of the countervailing charge
     for the transposition of Council Directive 90/667/EEC            pursuant to Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 on protective
     of 27 November 1990 laying down the veterinary rules             measures applicable to imports of dried grapes (4), on the
     for the disposal and processing of animal waste, for its         interpretation and validity of Article 4 ( 3 ) of Commission
     placing on the market and for the prevention of                  Regulation ( EEC ) No 2742/82 of 13 October 1982 on
     pathogens in feedstuffs of animal or fish origin, and            protective measures applicable to imports of dried
     amending Directive 90/425/EEC, the Kingdom of the                grapes (5 ), and on the interpretation of Article 14 of Council
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under           Regulation (EEC ) No 516/77 of 14 March 1977 on the
     Article 21 (1) of the first-mentioned directive;
                                                                      common organization of the market in products processed
                                                                      from fruit and vegetables (6); and (in Case C-353/93 ) on the
2. orders the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                   interpretation and validity of Article 3 ( 3 ) of Commission
     costs.                                                           Regulation ( EEC ) No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on
                                                                      protective measures applicable to imports of certain
(M OJ No C 120, 30 . 4 . 1994 .                                       Morello cherries ( 7) and on the interpretation of
(2 ) OJ No L 363 , 27. 12 . 1990, p . 51 .                            Article 18 (2 ) of Regulation No 426/86 — the Court ( Sixth
                                                                      Chamber), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler, President of
                                                                      the Chamber, P. J. G. Kapteyn, G. F. Mancini, C. N.
                                                                      Kakouris (Rapporteur) and J. L. Murray, Judges; W. van
                                                                      Gerven, Advocate General; H. A. Riihl, Principal
                                                                      Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                      19 January 1995 , in which it rules:
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                        (Sixth Chamber)                               Case C-352/93
                     of 19 January 1995
in Joined Cases C-351/93, C-352/93 and C-353/93                       1 . Community law is to be interpreted as meaning that the
(references for preliminary rulings from the College van                  legel basis for calculation of a countervailing charge
Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven): Fitmay Ltd and H. A. van                  imposed for the first time after delivery of the judgment
der Linde v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en                       ofl 1 February 1988 in Case 77/86 National Dried Fruit
Visserij and Tracotex Holland BV v. Minister van                          Trade Association [1988] ECR 757 is Article 2 (2) of
           Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij ( l )                       Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2742/82 of
                                                                          13 October 1982 on protective measures applicable to
(Common organization ofthe market in productsprocessed                    imports of dried grapes, in so far as it was not declared
from fruit and vegetables — Import into the Community of                  invalid by that judgment;
driedgrapes and Morello cherries — Countervailing charge
if the minimum import price is not respected —
Determination of the actual import price — Extent of the             2. Article 4 (3) of Regulation No 2742/82 is to be
      powers of the authorities of the Member States)                     interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities
                                                                          have doubts as to whether the import price declared is
                          ( 95/C 54/06)                                   the true one, they may take al necessary measures to
                                                                          establish that price;
                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                                                                     3 . consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of
                                                                          such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 4 (3) of
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                          Regulation No 2742/82.
         published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                     Case C-351 /92
In Joined Cases C-351/93 , C-352/93 and C-353/93 :
references to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty
from the College van Beroep voor het Bedrijfsleven                   1 . Article 2 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
(Administrative Court for Trade and Industry),                            No 2237/85 of 30 July 1985 laying down detailed rules
Netherlands, for preliminary rulings in the proceedings                   for the application of the minimum import price system
pending before that court between Fitmay Ltd and H. A. van                for dried grapes is to be interpreted as meaning that ifthe
der Linde and Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en                      national authorities have doubts as to whether the
Visserij and between Tracotex Holland BV and Minister van                 import price declared is the true one, they may take all
Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij — on (in Case                          necessary measures to establish that price;
 ---pagebreak--- 4.3.95                [JN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                   No C 54/5
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of            said directives and Articles 5 and 1 89 of the EC Treaty — the
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 2 (3) of         Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: F. A. Schockweiler,
     Regulation (EEC) No 2237/85.                                      President of the Chamber, G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris,
                                                                       J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; P. Leger,
Case C-353/93                                                          Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
                                                                       on 19 January 1995, in which it:
1 . Article 3 (3) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
     No 1626/85 of 14 June 1985 on protective measures                 1 . declares that by failing to adopt within the prescribed
     applicable to imports of certain Morello cherries is to be              period the laws, regulations and administrative
     interpreted as meaning that if the competent authorities                provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive
     have doubts as to whether the import price declared is                   91 /687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending Directives
     the true one, they make take all necessary measures to                   64/432/EEC, 72/461 /EEC and 80/215/EEC as regards
     estasblish that price;                                                   certain measures relating to swine-fever and with
                                                                              Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991
2. consideration of the question has disclosed no factor of                   amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and
     such a kind as to affect the validity of Article 3 (3) of                veterinary inspection problems upon importation of
     Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85;                                             bovine, ovine and caprine animals and swine, fresh meat
3 . Article 3 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1626/85 is to be                     or meat products from third countries the Kingdom of
     interpreted as meaning that the phrase 'the exporter in                  Belgium has failed to fulfil the obligations regarding
     the country in which the products originated' refers                     their transposition imposed on it by Article 4 of
     exclusively to an exporter whose undertaking is                          Directive 91 /687/EEC and Article 2 of Directive
     established in the country of origin of the goods.                       91 /688/EEC;
(!) OJ No C 232, 28 . 8 . 1993 .                                       2 . order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
(2 ) OJ No L 209, 6 . 8 . 1985 , p. 24 .
(3 ) OJ No L 49, 27. 2 . 1986, p. 1 .                                  (M OJ No C 103 , 11 . 4 . 1994 .
(4 ) OJ No  L  99, 16 . 4 . 1988, p . 12 .                             (2 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p. 16 .
(5)  OJ No  L  290, 19 . 10 . 1982, p . 28                              (3 ) OJ No L 377, 31 . 12 . 1991 , p . 18 .
(6 ) OJ No  L  73 , 21 . 3 . 1977, p. 1 .
( 7) OJ No  L  156, 15 . 6 . 1985 , p. 13 .
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                            (Sixth Chamber)                                                   of 24 January 1995
                         of 19 January 1995                            in Case C-359/93: Commission of the                   European
in    Case     C-66/94: Commission of the              European                Communities v. Kingdom of the Netherlands ( ! )
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium ( x )                      (Tender notices for public supply contracts — Review
(Failure by a Member State to fulfilits obligations — Failure               procedure — Notification — Technical specifications)
                      to transpose a directive)                                                    ( 95/C 54/08 )
                              ( 95/C 54/07)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
                 (Language of the case: French)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
         published in the European Court Reports)                                  published in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-66/94: Commission of the European                             In Case C-359/93 : Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Gerard Rozet) v. Kingdom of Belgium                 Communities (Agent: H. van Lier) v. Kingdom of the
(Agent: Jan Devadder) — application for a declaration that              Netherlands (Agents: J. W. de Zwaan and T. Heukels ) —
by failing to bring into force the laws, regulations and                application for a declaration that the Kingdom of the
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council              Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under Council
Directive 91/687/EEC of 11 December 1991 amending                       Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976 coordinating
Directives 64/432/EEC, 72/461/EEC and 80/215/EEC as                     procedures for the award of public supply contracts (2 ), as
regards certain measures relating to swine-fever (2) and with           amended by Council Directives 80/767/EEC ( 3 ) and
Council Directive 91 /688/EEC of 11 December 1991                       88/295/EEC (4), and also under Article 30 of the EEC
amending Directive 72/462/EEC on health and veterinary                  Treaty, — the Court, composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias,
inspection problems upon importation of bovine, ovine and               President, P. J. G. Kapteyn (President of Chamber), G. F.
caprine animals and swine, fresh meat or meat products                  Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward
from third countries (3 ) and/or by failing to communicate              (Rapporteur) and G. Hirsch, Judges; G. Tesauro: Advocate
them to the Commission, the Kingdom of Belgium has failed               General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on
to fulfil its obligations under the penultimate articles of the         24 January 1995 , in which it: