title: Case C-563/15: Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain (Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Environment — Directive 2008/98/EC — Articles 13 and 15 — Waste management — Protection of human health and the environment — Responsibility — Landfills)

text:
               15.5.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 151/9

         Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 15 March 2017 — European Commission v Kingdom of Spain
   (Case C-563/15) (1)

   ((Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environment - Directive 2008/98/EC - Articles 13 and 15 - Waste management - Protection of human health and the environment - Responsibility - Landfills))
   (2017/C 151/13)
   Language of the case: Spanish

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Pignataro-Nolin and E. Sanfrutos Cano, acting as Agents)

      Defendant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: A. Gavela Llopis, acting as Agent)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt, with regard to the landfills of Torremolinos (Malaga), Torrent de S’Estret (Andratx, Mallorca), Hoya de la Yegua de Arriba (Yaiza, Lanzarote), Barranco de Butihondo (Pájara, Fuerteventura), La Laguna-Tiscamanita (Tuineje, Fuerteventura), Lomo Blanco (Antigua, Fuerteventura), Montaña de Amagro (Galdar, Gran Canaria), Franja Costera de Botija (Galdar, Gran Canaria), Cueva Lapa (Galdar, Gran Canaria), La Colmena (Santiago del Teide, Tenerife), Montaña Los Giles (La Laguna, Tenerife), Las Rosas (Güimar, Tenerife), Barranco de Tejina (Guía de Isora, Tenerife), Llano de Ifara (Granadilla de Abona, Tenerife), Barranco del Carmen (Santa Cruz de La Palma, La Palma), Barranco Jurado (Tijarafe, La Palma), Montaña Negra (Puntagorda, La Palma), Lomo Alto (Fuencaliente, La Palma), Arure/Llano Grande (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera), El Palmar — Taguluche (Hermigua, La Gomera), Paraje de Juan Barba (Alajeró, La Gomera), El Altito (Valle Gran Rey, La Gomera), Punta Sardina (Agulo, La Gomera), Los Llanillos (La Frontera, El Hierro), Faro de Orchilla (La Frontera, El Hierro), Montaña del Tesoro (Valverde, El Hierro), Arbancón (Castilla-La Mancha), Galve de Sorbe (Castilla-La Mancha), Hiendelaencina (Castilla-La Mancha), Tamajón (Castilla-La Mancha), El Casar (Castilla-La Mancha), Cardeñosa (Ávila), Miranda de Ebro (Burgos), Poza de la Sal (Burgos), Acebedo (León), Bustillo del Páramo (León), Cármenes (León), Gradefes (León), de Noceda del Bierzo (León), San Millán de los Caballeros (León), Santa María del Páramo (León), Villaornate y Castro (León), Cevico de La Torre (Palencia), Palencia (Palencia), Ahigal de los Aceiteros (Salamanca), Alaraz (Salamanca), Calvarrasa de Abajo (Salamanca), Hinojosa de Duero (Salamanca), Machacón (Salamanca), Palaciosrubios (Salamanca), Peñaranda de Bracamonte (Salamanca), Salmoral (Salamanca), Tordillos (Salamanca), Basardilla (Segovia), Cabezuela (Segovia), Almaraz del Duero (Zamora), Cañizal (Zamora), Casaseca de las Chanas (Zamora), La Serratilla (Abanilla), Las Rellanas (Santomera) and El Labradorcico (Águilas), the necessary measures to ensure that waste management is carried out without endangering human health, without harming the environment and, in particular without risk to water, air, soil, animals or plants, and that the waste disposed of is treated by the municipalities themselves or by a dealer, an establishment or undertaking which carries out waste treatment operations or a private or public waste collector, in accordance with Articles 4 and 13 of Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfill its obligations under Articles 13 and 15(1) of that directive;

               2.

               Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 16, 18.1.2016.


               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/54

         Removal from the register of Case C-393/03 (1)

   (2004/C 106/104)
   By order of 16 March 2004, the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-393/03: Republic of Austria v Commission of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 264 of 1. 11. 2003.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 18 September 2002 in Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín v Commission of the European Communities (Officials — Reinstatement — Installation allowance — Further payment of invalidity pension — Resettlement allowance — Conditions)

text:
23.11.2002                EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                              C 289/23
the European Communities (Agents: C. Bury and R. Vidal):                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision of
28 February 2000 concerning the applicants’ request for the
opening of an investigation with a view to withdrawal of the                                          of 18 September 2002
benefit of the general tariff preference system in respect of
polyethylene terephthalate film originating in India, the Court               in Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín v Commission of
of First Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J.D. Cooke,                                      the European Communities (1)
President, R. García-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 12 September 2002, in
which it:                                                                     (Officials — Reinstatement — Installation allowance —
                                                                              Further payment of invalidity pension — Resettlement
                                                                                allowance — Conditions)
1.     Annuls the Commission’s decision of 28 February 2000;
2.     Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those                                       (2002/C 289/45)
       of the applicants.
                                                                                (Language of the case: Spanish)
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.
                                                                              In Case T-29/01: Carlos Puente Martín, an official of the
                                                                              Commission of the European Communities, residing in Madrid,
                                                                              represented by O. González Correas, lawyer, against Com-
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                  mission of the European Communities (Agents: J. Currall,
                                                                              J. Rivas-Andrés and J. Gutiérrez Gisbert) — application for
                                                                              annulment of the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000
                       of 11 September 2002                                   refusing to grant to the applicant the full installation allowance
                                                                              and resettlement allowance following his installation in Brus-
in Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin v Commission of the                           sels and resettlement in Madrid -the Court of First Instance
                     European Communities ( 1)                                (Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili
                                                                              and P. Mengozzi, Judges; Registrar: J. Palacio González,
(Officials — Expatriation allowance — Article 4(1)(a) of                      Administrator, gave a judgment on 18 September 2002, in
Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Work done for an                         which it:
                     international organisation)
                                                                              1.     Held that there was no need to adjudicate on the claim that the
                            (2002/C 289/44)                                          Court of First Instance should accept Spanish as the language
                                                                                of the case;
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                              2.     Annulled the Commission’s decision of 22 February 2000 to
                                                                                the extent that it refused to grant the applicant the full
In Case T-127/00: Michael Nevin, an official of the Com-                             installation allowance provided for in Article 5(1) of Annex VII
mission of the European Communities, residing in Tervuren                            to the Staff Regulations and the full resettlement allowance
(Belgium), represented by N. Lhoëst, lawyer, with an address for                     provided for in Article 6(1) of Annex VII to the Staff
service in Luxembourg, against Commission of the European                            Regulations;
Communities (Agents: J. Currall, D. Waelbroeck and A. Vro-
ninks) — application for annulment of the Commission’s                        3.     Ordered the Commission to pay the applicant the allowances,
decision of 9 April 1999 refusing to grant the applicant the                         plus default interest from the respective dates on which it became
expatriation allowance provided for by Article 4 of Annex VII                        due on those allowances in accordance with Annex VII to the
to the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communi-                       Staff Regulations to the date of payment, after deduction of the
ties and, secondly a claim for payment of that allowance                             sums already paid to the applicant as installation allowance;
together with default interest - the Court of First Instance                         the annual rate of that default interest is to be calculated on the
(Fourth Chamber), composed of M. Vilaras, President, V. Tiili                        basis of the rate fixed by the Governing Council of the European
and P. Mengozzi, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the                         Central Bank for principal refinancing operations and applicable
Registrar, gave a judgment on 11 September 2002, in which                            during the period in question, plus two points;
it:
                                                                              4.     Dismissed the remainder of the application;
1.     dismisses the application.
                                                                              5.     Ordered the Commission to pay the costs.
2.     orders the parties to bear their own costs.
                                                                              (1 ) OJ C 118 of 21 April 2001.
( 1) OJ C 176 of 24.6.2000.


title: Case T-409/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — ASTER v Commission

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/29

         Order of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2008 — ASTER v Commission
   (Case T-409/05) (1)

   (2008/C 116/54)

      Language of the case: Italian

   The President of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 22, 28.1.2006.


title: Case C-412/02: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael Gene Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght, and 6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie van Financiën

text:
8.3.2003                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 55/5
that, by failing to take all necessary measures to ensure that              What is the precise scope of the eleven-month time limit laid
the quality of its bathing water conforms to the limit values               down in Article 11a(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC)
laid down by Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December                     No 1062/87 ( 1) of 27 March 1987 on provisions for the
1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (OJ 1976 L 31,                 implementation of the Community transit procedure and for
p. 1) and by failing to adhere to the minimum sampling                      certain simplifications of that procedure, inserted by
frequencies required by that directive, the Kingdom of Den-                 Article 1(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1429/90 (2)
mark has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles 4(1)               of 29 May 1990 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1062/87 on
and 6(1) of the same directive, the Court (Sixth Chamber),                  provisions for the implementation of the Community transit
composed of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber,                    procedure and for certain simplifications of that procedure (as
R. Schintgen, C. Gulmann, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues               applicable prior to the repeal of Regulation No 1062/87 by
(Rapporteur), Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate General; H. von                   Article 127(1) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1214/
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 January              92 (3) of 21 April 1992 on provisions for the implementation
2003, in which it:                                                          of the Community transit procedure and for certain simplifi-
                                                                            cations of that procedure, repealed in turn by Article 913 of
                                                                            Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 ( 4) of 2 July 1993
1.    Declares that, by failing, during the years 1995 to 1998, to          laying down provisions for the implementation of Council
      take all necessary measures to ensure that the quality of its         Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 ( 5) establishing the Community
      bathing water conformed to the limit values laid down in              Customs Code)?
      Council Directive 76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concern-
      ing the quality of bathing water and by failing, during the same
      years, to adhere to the minimum sampling frequencies required
                                                                            Must this provision be construed as meaning that the com-
      by that directive, the Kingdom of Denmark has failed to fulfil
      its obligations under Articles 4(1) and 6(1) of the same              petent Member State is not entitled to demand the duties owed
                                                                            from the principal where this eleven-month time limit has not
      directive;
                                                                            been observed?
2.    Orders the Kingdom of Denmark to pay the costs.
                                                                            (1 ) OJ L 107 [1987], p. 1.
                                                                            (2 ) OJ L 137 [1990], p. 21.
( 1) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001.                                                 (3 ) OJ L 132 [1992], p. 1.
                                                                            (4 ) OJ L 253 [1993], p. 1.
                                                                            (5 ) OJ L 302 [1992], p. 1.
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael Gene                    Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hof van Cassatie
Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                     by judgment of that Court of 5 November 2002 in the
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght,                    case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie van
and 6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie                     Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
                             van Financiën                                  Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Minis-
                                                                                terie van Financiën
                           (Case C-412/02)
                                                                                (Case C-413/02)
                            (2003/C 55/09)
                                                                                (2003/C 55/10)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie                    Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
(Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at                European Communities by judgment of the Hof van Cassatie
the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary                   (Belgian Court of Cassation) of 5 November 2002, received at
ruling in the case of 1. Belgian Refining Corporation, 2. Michael           the Court Registry on 19 November 2002, for a preliminary
Gene Sachs, 3. Alfred Alfons Marie Leysens, 4. André Leonard                ruling in the case of I. Francis Maria SIPS against Ministerie
Elisabeth Schatteman, 5. Frank Catharina Martin Devoght, and                van Financiën and II. Florentius Martha Adrianus Petrus
6. Gilbert Theo Marie Frans Dias against Ministerie van                     Vreijsen and Vreijsen Douane-Expediteur against Ministerie
Financiën on the following questions:                                       van Financiën on the following questions:


title: Case C-126/05: Order of the President of the Court of  5 December 2005  — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

text:
               17.6.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 143/29

         Order of the President of the Court of 5 December 2005 — Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
   (Case C-126/05) (1)

   (2006/C 143/59)

      Language of the case: English

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

      (1)  OJ C 132, 20.05.2005.


title: Case C-52/99 and C-53/99: References for preliminary rulings from the Cour du Travail de Liège (13th Chamber) by judgments of that court of 2 February 1999 in the cases of Office National des Pensions v. Gioconda Camarotto and Office National des Pensions v. Giuseppina Vignone

text:
10.4.1999              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                 C 100/15
Chambers of ArseÁne Kronshagen, 22 Rue Marie-AdeÂlaïde,                the case of Jean-Marie Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par
against the order made on 8 December 1998 by the                       reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA),
Fourth Chamber (Extended Composition) of the Court of                  Association GeÂneÂrale des Institutions de Retraite des
First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-38/               Cadres (AGIRC), Union Interprofessionnelle de Retraite
98 Associazione Nazionale Bieticoltori (ANB), Francesco                de l'Industrie et du Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale
Coccia and Vincenzo Di Giovine v. Council of the                       Interprofessionnelle de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS),
European Union.                                                        Association des ReÂgimes de Retraite CompleÂmentaire
                                                                       (ARRCO) on the following question:
The appellants claim that the Court should set aside the               Is Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, which asserts the
Court of First Instance's order of 8 December 1998 in                  principle of equal pay for men and women, applicable to
Case T-39/98 by declaring the application to be admissible             the supplementary retirement pension schemes of AGIR
and refer the case back to the Court of First Instance for a           and ARRCO and does it prohibit them from
decision on the substance.                                             discriminating between men and women in respect of the
                                                                       age at which they are entitled to a survivor's pension
                                                                       following the death of their spouse?
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
The legal effects of the contested regulation (1) are direct
inasmuch as its operative provision does not require any
subsequent measure of implementation by a Community
institution or a national authority.                                   Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale
                                                                       Amministrativo per la Basilicata (Administrative Tribunal
                                                                       of the Basilicata region) by order of that court of
That provision adversely affects the appellants                        22 October 1998, in the case of Massimo Triumbari v.
individually' and in a manner which distinguishes them                Questore della provincia di Potenza (Chief of Police of the
from any other producer.                                               province of Potenza) and the Minister of Finance and the
                                                                                Minister of the Interior
                                                                                (Case C-51/99)
It follows      that   the   application   must     be  declared                              (1999/C 100/28)
admissible.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2613/97 of 15 December 1997             Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    authorising Portugal to grand aid to sugar beet producers and      European Communities by order of 22 October 1998,
    abolishing all State aid from the 2001/2002 marketing year         which was received at the Court Registry on 16 February
    (OJ L 353, 24.12.1997, p. 3).                                      1999, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Massimo
                                                                       Triumbari v. Questore della provincia di Potenza and the
                                                                       Minister of Finance and the Minister of the Interior on the
                                                                       following questions:
                                                                       Do the Treaty provisions on the provision of services
                                                                       preclude rules such as the Italian betting legislation in
                                                                       view of the social policy concerns and of the concern to
Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de                prevent fraud that justify it?
Grande Instance (First Chamber), Paris, by judgment of
that court of 12 January 1999 in the case of Jean-Marie
Podesta v. Caisse de Retraite par reÂpartition des IngeÂnieurs
Cadres & AssimileÂs (CRICA), Association GeÂneÂrale des
Institutions de Retraite des Cadres (AGIRC), Union
Interprofessionnelle de Retraite de l'Industrie et du
Commerce (UIRIC), Caisse GeÂneÂrale Interprofessionnelle               References for preliminary rulings from the Cour du
de Retraite pour SalarieÂs (CGIS), Association des ReÂgimes            Travail de LieÁge (13th Chamber) by judgments of that
            de Retraite CompleÂmentaire (ARRCO)                        court of 2 February 1999 in the cases of Office National
                                                                       des Pensions v. Gioconda Camarotto and Office National
                         (Case C-50/99)
                                                                                des Pensions v. Giuseppina Vignone
                        (1999/C 100/27)                                                (Case C-52/99 and C-53/99)
                                                                                (1999/C 100/29)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a judgment of the Tribunal de                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Grande Instance (Regional Court) (First Chamber), Paris,               European Communities by judgments of the 13th
of 12 January 1999, which was received at the Court                    Chamber of the Cour du Travail (Higher Labour Court),
Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary ruling in              LieÁge, of 2 February 1999, which were received at the
 ---pagebreak--- C 100/16               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                 10.4.1999
Court Registry on 17 February 1999, for preliminary                 Do the provisions of Article 73d of the Treaty of 25 March
rulings in the cases of Office National des Pensions v.             1957 establishing the European Community, as amended,
Gioconda Camarotto and Office National des Pensions v.              according to which the prohibition of all restrictions on
Giuseppina Vignone on the following questions:                      movements of capital between Member States is without
                                                                    prejudice to the right of Member States to take measures
                                                                    which are justified on grounds of public policy or public
                                                                    security', allow a Member State, in derogation from the
1. Does Article 95a of Council Regulation (EEC)
                                                                    system of full freedom or the declaration system
     No 1408/71 (1) as amended by Council Regulation
                                                                    applicable to foreign investments within its territory, to
     (EEC) No 1248/92, refer solely to recipients of
                                                                    maintain a system of prior authorisation for such
     pensions where the decision granting the pension was
                                                                    investments as may adversely affect public order, public
     final at the time of the entry into force of the
                                                                    health or public security, it being specified that this
     amendment, or does it relate also to recipients of
                                                                    authorisation is deemed to have been obtained one month
     pensions who before the entry into force of the
                                                                    after receipt of the investment declaration submitted to the
     amendments introduced by the new regulation had
                                                                    Minister unless the latter, within the same period, declares
     already brought proceedings before a national court
                                                                    that the transaction in question has been deferred?
     seeking to obtain precisely the right to the pension by
     contesting the application of the national rules against
     overlapping, a final decision in those proceedings not
     yet having been given at the time of the entry into
     force of the new provisions?
2. If Article 95a applies to all recipients without
     distinction, must the application referred to in               Action brought on 18 February 1999 by the Commission
     Article 95a(4) be made to the competent social                 of the European Communities against the French Republic
     security institution in accordance with the formalities                                (Case C-55/99)
     required by national legislation for the bringing of an
     application for review, or may it be made to the court                                (1999/C 100/31)
     before which the dispute has been brought in
     accordance with the applicable rules of procedure, and
     in the latter case must the period of two years referred
                                                                    An action against the French Republic was brought before
     to in Article 95a(5) and (6) likewise be complied with?
                                                                    the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
                                                                    18 February 1999 by the Commission of the European
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
                                                                    Communities, represented by Richard Wainwright,
    the application of social security schemes to employed          Principal Legal Adviser, and Olivier Couvert-CasteÂra, a
    persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their       national civil servant on secondment to its Legal Service,
    families moving within the Community, (OJ, English Special      acting as Agents, with an address for service in
    Edition 1971, p 416).                                           Luxembourg at the Office of Carlos Gómez de la Cruz,
                                                                    Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
                                                                    The Commission of the European Communities claims
                                                                    that the Court should:
                                                                    Ð declare that, by establishing, in Decree No 96Ð351 of
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the French Conseil
                                                                        19 April 1996 (1), a procedure for the registration of
d'Etat by decision of 6 January 1999 in the case of
                                                                        medical reagents, and by imposing in that decree the
Association Eglise de Scientologie de Paris' and
                                                                        obligation to state the registration number on the
Scientology International Reserves Trust v. French
                                                                        external packaging and the notice accompanying each
                            Republic
                                                                        reagent, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its
                         (Case C-54/99)                                 obligations under Article 30 of the EC Treaty;
                        (1999/C 100/30)
                                                                    Ð order the French Republic to pay the costs.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by decision of 6 January 1999 by               Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support
the French Conseil d'Etat, which was received at the
Court Registry on 16 February 1999, for a preliminary
ruling in the case of Association Eglise de Scientologie de        1. In the Commission's view, the application to all
Paris' and Scientology International Reserves Trust v.                  reagents covered by Decree No 96Ð351 of 19 April
French Republic on the following question:                              1996, without distinction as to the level of the


title: Case C-44/02: Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of the European Communities against Portuguese Republic

text:
C 97/4                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                     20.4.2002
(3) Are the same provisions of Regulation 896/2001 incom-               Pleas in law and main arguments
     patible with Council Regulation EEC No 404/93 (2) of
     13 February 1993 (with subsequent amendments and
     additions), in particular with Article 20 thereof?
                                                                        Under the first paragraph of Article 10 and the third paragraph
                                                                        of Article 249 of the EC Treaty, Member States must adopt the
(4) If the answer given to the preceding questions is in the            measures necessary to transpose directives addressed to them
     negative, the Court is asked to state whether, by preclu-          into their domestic law before the expiry of the period
     ding persons related to traditional operators from being           prescribed for doing so. That period expired on 29 September
     granted a tariff quota even as ‘non-traditional operators’,        2000 without Portugal having brought into force the necessary
     Article 6 of the aforementioned Commission regulation,             provisions.
     in particular subparagraph (c) thereof, conflicts with the
     fundamental right to pursue a professional activity,
     viewed in relation to the freedom to conduct a business.
                                                                        (1) OJ 2000 L 173, p. 1.
(1) OJ L 126, 8.5.2001, p. 6.
(2) OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.
                                                                        Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
                                                                         the European Communities against Portuguese Republic
Action brought on 15 February 2002 by Commission of
 the European Communities against Portuguese Republic                                             (Case C-45/02)
                         (Case C-44/02)                                                           (2002/C 97/09)
                         (2002/C 97/08)
                                                                        An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought
                                                                        before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on
An action against the Portuguese Republic was brought                   15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on              Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
15 February 2002 by the Commission of the European                      Agent.
Communities, represented by António Caeiros, acting as
Agent.
                                                                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                        —     Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force
—    Declare that, by failing to adopt and bring into force                   within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and
     within the prescribed period the laws, regulations and                   administrative provisions necessary to comply with Com-
     administrative provisions necessary to comply with                       mission Directive 2000/2/EC of 14 January 2000 adapt-
     Directive 2000/25/EC of the European Parliament and of                   ing to technical progress Council Directive 75/322/EEC
     the Council of 22 May 2000 on action to be taken against                 relating to the suppression of radio interference produced
     the emission of gaseous and particulate pollutants by                    by spark-ignition engines fitted to wheeled agricultural
     engines intended to power agricultural or forestry tractors              or forestry tractors and Council Directive 74/150/EEC
     and amending Council Directive 74/150/EEC(1), the                        relating to the type-approval of wheeled agricultural or
     Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations                 forestry tractors (1), the Portuguese Republic has failed
     under Article 9 of the aforementioned Directive                          to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 of Directive
     2000/25/EC; and                                                          2000/2/EC;
—    In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform the         —     In the alternative, declare that, by failing to inform
     Commission of such provisions, the Portuguese Republic                   the Commission immediately of such provisions, the
     has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 9 of the              Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations
     aforementioned Directive 2000/25/EC;                                     under Article 4 of Directive 2000/2/EC;
—    Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                    —     Order the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.


title: Case T-75/03: Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Banco Comercial dos Açores, SA against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
10.5.2003              EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 112/35
The applicant furthermore submits that the Commission failed               The applicant relies on the following:
to take into account the applicant’s smaller total size in relation
to that of the other participants in the infringement while                —     error of law in the application of Article 87 of the EC
determining the starting point for the calculation of the fine.                  Treaty: the measure at issue is of general scope and does
According to the applicant, the Commission should have                           not constitute State aid within the meaning of Article 87
applied a downward adjustment for the applicant.                                 of the EC Treaty. In any event, the Commission has not
                                                                                demonstrated that the criterion as to effect on trade
The applicant finally claims that its cooperation with the                       between Member States has been met;
investigation qualified for a reduction of 50 % rather than
35 %. The applicant states that it voluntarily provided the                —     error in the facts set out in the decision: the undertakings
Commission with evidence showing that the infringement                           in the financial sector are affected, as are the undertakings
started earlier than known to the Commission.                                    in the remaining business sectors, by the structural
                                                                                disadvantages acknowledged in the contested decision;
                                                                           —     breach of an essential procedural requirement in that the
                                                                                statement of reasons is inadequate;
                                                                           —     breach of the principle of equality; and
Action brought on 28 February 2003 by Banco Comercial
dos Açores, SA against the Commission of the European
                           Communities                                     —     breach of the principles of legal certainty and legitimate
                                                                                expectations.
                          (Case T-75/03)
                         (2003/C 112/67)
                  (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                           Action brought on 4 March 2003 by Feralpi Siderurgica
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                  S.p.A. against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                                                 ties
European Communities on 28 February 2003 by the Banco
Comercial dos Açores, SA, whose registered office is in Edifício
BCA, Rua Dr. José Bruno Tavares Carreiro, Ponta Delgada,                                             (Case T-77/03)
Azores, represented by Carlos Botelho Moniz and Margarida
Rosado da Fonseca, lawyers.
                                                                                (2003/C 112/68)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
—     annul the last part of Article 1, together with Articles 2,
      3 and 4 of the decision of the Commission of 11 Decem-
      ber 2002 ‘on the part of the scheme adapting the
      national tax system to the specific characteristics of the           An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
      autonomous region of the Azores with regard to the tax               ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
      reductions’ to the extent that those provisions refer                European Communities on 4 March 2003 by the above
      to undertakings which pursue the financial activities                applicant, represented by Prof. G. M. Roberti, A. Franchi and
      provided for in Section J (Codes 65, 66 and 67) of the               I. Perego, lawyers,
      Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the
      European Community — NACE REV1.1);
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
—     order the Commission of the European Communities to
      pay the entire costs.
                                                                           —     annul wholly or in part the Commission Decision of
                                                                                17 December 2002 on a proceeding pursuant to Article 6
                                                                                of the ECSC Treaty (Case COMP/37.956 — concrete
Pleas in law and main arguments                                                  reinforcing bars);
The contested decision declares compatible with the common                 —     cancel or reduce the fine imposed pursuant to Article 2
market the aid granted in the form of tax reductions under the                   of that decision;
tax system of the Azores, but not as regards the financial
services.                                                                  —     order the defendant to pay the costs.


title: Case T-147/16: Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — Italy v Commission (Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations — Periodic penalty payment — Judgment quantifying the amount of the periodic penalty — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/35

         Order of the General Court of 28 November 2016 — Italy v Commission
   (Case T-147/16) (1)

   ((Failure to comply with a judgment of the Court of Justice establishing that a Member State has failed to fulfil obligations - Periodic penalty payment - Judgment quantifying the amount of the periodic penalty - No need to adjudicate))
   (2017/C 022/48)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Palmieri, acting as Agent, and S. Fiorentino, avvocato dello Stato)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Recchia, acting as Agents)

      Subject matter

   Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission Decision C(2016) 366 final of 28 January 2016, by which, in order to ensure compliance with the judgment of 17 November 2011, Commission v Italy, (C-496/09, EU:C:2011:740), the Commission fixed the amount of the periodic penalty owed by the Italian Republic for the six months from 18 November 2012 to 17 May 2013 and for the six months from 18 May 2013 to 17 November 2013.

      Operative part of the order

               1)

               There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the present action.

               2)

               The European Commission shall pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 191, 30.5.2016.


title: Case C-415/03: Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic

text:
C 289/14               EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                          29.11.2003
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Regeringsrätten                  Action brought on 3 October 2003 by the Commission of
by order of that Court of 29 September 2003 in the case                    the European Communities against the Hellenic Republic
  of Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB against Riksskatteverket
                                                                                (Case C-415/03)
                          (Case C-412/03)
                                                                                (2003/C 289/28)
                         (2003/C 289/27)
                                                                           An action against the Hellenic Republic was brought before
                                                                           the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 Octo-
                                                                           ber 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities,
                                                                           represented by D. Triantafillou and J.L. Buendia Sierra, of its
                                                                           Legal Service.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     The applicant claims that the Court should:
European Communities by order of the Regeringsrätten
(Supreme Administrative Court) of 29 September 2003,
received at the Court Registry on 3 October 2003, for a                    —     declare that, by failing to take, within the time-limit laid
preliminary ruling in the case of Hotel Scandic Gåsabäck AB                      down, all the measures necessary for repayment of the
against Riksskatteverket on the following questions:                             aid found to be unlawful and incompatible with the
                                                                                common market (except the IKA (Social Security Insti-
                                                                                tution) contributions) in accordance with Article 3 of the
                                                                                Commission Decision of 11 December 2002 on aid
1.    In the event that the Regeringsrätten finds, when the case                 granted by Greece to Olympic Airways (notified under
      is decided, that the company’s supplies are supplies of                    document number C(2002) 4831) or, in any event, by
      goods, are Article 2 and Article 5(6) of the Sixth Value                   failing to inform the Commission of the measures taken
      Added Tax Directive (1) to be interpreted as precluding                    pursuant to Article 4, the Hellenic Republic has failed to
      provisions in the legislation of a Member State under                      fulfil its obligations under Articles 3 and 4 of that decision
      which withdrawal of goods means that a taxable person                      and the EC Treaty;
      transfers goods to a third party for a consideration less
      than the purchase value of the goods or of similar goods
      or, if no such value is available, the cost price.                   —     order the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
2.    In the event that the Regeringsrätten finds, when the
      case is decided, that the company’s supplies are food                Pleas in law and main arguments
      dispensing services, are Article 2 and Article 6(2)(b) of
      the Sixth Value Added Tax Directive to be interpreted as
      precluding provisions in the legislation of a Member State
      under which withdrawal of goods means that a taxable                 The Commission decision obliges Greece to take all the
      person performs, arranges performance or in some other               necessary measures so as to recover from Olympic Airways
      way provides a service for himself or his staff for private          both the sum of EUR 41 000 000 (which relates to the
      purposes or for other non-commercial purposes, where                 restructuring aid set out in Article 1 of the decision) and the
      the service is provided for a consideration less than the            aid referred to in Article 2 of the decision, and to inform the
      cost of performing the service.                                      Commission within two months of the measures adopted.
                                                                           That period for compliance with the decision expired on
(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the               13 February 2003.
    harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to
    turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform
    basis of assessment (OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1).
                                                                           In accordance with settled case-law, the only justification
                                                                           which may be put forward by a Member State in the context
                                                                           of the procedure under Article 88(2) EC is that it is absolutely
                                                                           impossible to implement the decision properly. However, on
                                                                           expiry of the abovementioned time-limit, the Greek authorities
                                                                           refused to implement the decision, invoking other grounds.
 ---pagebreak--- 29.11.2003            EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                         C 289/15
Furthermore, in the present instance there are no grounds for                  ments with Romania, Poland and the Ukraine on trans-
allowing an exemption from the obligation to recover the aid.                  port by inland waterway, and refusing to revoke them;
                                                                         —     declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has
                                                                               breached its obligations under Regulation (EC) No 1356/
                                                                               96 (2), as the individual bilateral agreements on transport
                                                                               by inland waterway with Romania, Poland, the Ukraine,
                                                                               the Republic of Czechoslovakia and Hungary are incom-
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace                      patible with Regulation (EC) No 1356/96 and it has
di Milazzo by order of that Court of 18 April 2003 in the                      refused to revoke them;
   case of Provvidenza Regio against AXA Assicurazioni
                                                                         —     order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.
                        (Case C-425/03)
                        (2003/C 289/29)
                                                                         Pleas in law and main arguments
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                   —     The Federal Republic of Germany has usurped the
European Communities by order of the Giudice di Pace di                        exclusive competence of the Community to conclude
Milazzo (Milazzo Magistrates’ Court) of 18 April 2003,                         international agreements within the meaning of the
received at the Court Registry on 6 October 2003, for a                        ‘AETR’ case-law by negotiating, concluding, ratifying and
preliminary ruling in the case of Provvidenza Regio against                    bringing into force individual bilateral agreements with
AXA Assicurazioni on the following question:                                   Romania, Poland and the Ukraine on transport by inland
                                                                               waterway which have an impact on the Community
                                                                               provisions which the Community adopted in Regulation
The questions of unconstitutionality raised in the present                     (EEC) No 3921/91. That regulation lays down the con-
proceedings concern Article 1 of Decree Law No 18/03, which                    ditions under which non-resident carriers may transport
removes from equitable assessment cases falling within the                     goods or passengers by inland waterway within a Member
jurisdiction of the Giudice di Pace concerning standard form                   State. Those conditions were widened in stages. The
contracts the value of which does not exceed EUR 1 100.                        balance thereby created is disturbed by Article 6 of the
                                                                               agreements concluded with Poland, Romania and the
                                                                               Ukraine whereby operators resident in third countries
                                                                               have access to cabotage in Germany.
                                                                         —     The Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil
                                                                               its obligations under Article 10 EC by negotiating,
Action brought on 10 October 2003 by the Commission                            concluding, ratifying and bringing into force the con-
of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-                         tested bilateral agreements after the Council had granted
                         lic of Germany                                        the Commission authority to negotiate and the German
                                                                               Government could not have been unaware that nego-
                                                                               tiations for a multilateral agreement were in progress.
                        (Case C-433/03)
                                                                         —     The bilateral agreements concluded by the Federal Repub-
                        (2003/C 289/30)
                                                                               lic of Germany are incompatible with Council Regulation
                                                                               (EC) No 1356/96 on common rules applicable to the
                                                                               transport of goods or passengers by inland waterway
An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was                          between Member States with a view to establishing
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-                   freedom to provide such transport services. The Polish,
ties on 10 October 2003 by the Commission of the European                      Ukrainian, Romanian, Czech, Slovak and Hungarian
Communities, represented by Claudia Schmidt and Wils                           barge owners and inland waterway transport undertak-
Wouter of its Legal Service, and Andreas Manville, Assistant in                ings, which may be allowed to carry out transport
its Legal Service, with an address for service in Luxembourg.                  between Germany and the other Member States under
                                                                               the contested agreements, do not satisfy the conditions
                                                                               laid down in that Regulation.
The Commission of the European Communities claims that
the Court should:
                                                                         (1) OJ 1991 L 373, p. 1.
—     declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has                   (2) OJ 1996 L 175, p. 7.
      breached its obligations under Article 10 EC and Regu-
      lation (EEC) No 3921/91 (1) by negotiating, concluding,
      ratifying and implementing individual bilateral agree-


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht, Ansbach, by an order of that court of 23 November 1994 in the administrative law case of Hellen Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern (Case C-1/95)

text:
No C 54/6               EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      4 . 3 . 95
1 . declared that, by failing to indicate in the contract notice      Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerisches
     at issue the persons authorized to be present at the             Verwaltungsgericht, Ansbach, by an order of that court of
     opening of tenders and the date, time and place of               23 November 1994 in the administrative law case of Hellen
     opening, and by introducing into the general terms and                            Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern
     conditions a technical specification defined by reference                                   Case C-l/95 )
     to a product of a specific make, the Kingdom of the
     Netherlands has failed to fulfil its obligations under                                      ( 95/C 54/10 )
     Council Directive 77/62/EEC of 21 December 1976                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
     coordinating procedures for the award of public supply           European Communities by an order of the 12th Chamber of
     contracts, as amended by Council Directives                      the      Bayerisches          Verwaltungsgericht     (Bavarian
     80/767/EEC       and      88/295/EEC,   and also     under       Administrative Court) of 23 November 1994, which was
     Article 30 of the Treaty;                                        received at the Court Registry on 5 January 1995 , for a
                                                                      preliminary ruling in the administrative law case of Hellen
2. ordered the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the                  Gerster v. Freistaat Bayern, on the following questions:
     costs.
                                                                      1 . Is Article 119 of the EEC Treaty applicable to
                                                                          officials ?
(!) OJ No C 238 , 2 . 9 . 1993 .
(2 ) OJ No L 13 , 15 . 1 . 1977, p. 1 .                               2 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
(3 ) OJ No L 215, 18 . 8 . 1980, p. 1 .                                   an infringement of Article 119 of the EEC Treaty and of
(4) OJ No L 127, 20. 5. 1988, p. 1 .                                      Council Directive 75/117/EEC (.*) in the form of indirect
                                                                          discrimination against women where the second
                                                                          sentence of section 13 (2) of the Laufbahnverordnung
                                                                          ( Career on regulations, 'LBV') provides that, for the
                                                                          purpose of calculating the periods of services of officials,
                                                                          periods of employment involving working hours of at
                                                                          least one-half to two-thirds of normal working hours are
                  ORDER OF THE COURT                                      counted only as two-thirds of normal working
                       of 10 January 1995                                 hours ?
in Case C-l/94 S-A: Dupret SA v. Commission of the                    3 . If Question 1 is to be answered in the affirmative, is there
                  European Communities ( l )                              an infringement of Council Directive 76/207/EEC (2) in
(Application for authorization to serve a garnishee order on              the form of indirect discrimination against women in
       the Commission of the European Communities)                        regard to access to career progression (promotion),
                            ( 95/C 54/09 )                                where the second sentence of section 13 (2 ) of the LBV
                                                                          provides that, for the purpose of calculating the periods
                                                                          of service of officials, periods of employment involving
               (Language of the case: French)                             working hours of at least one-half of two-thirds of
                                                                          normal working hours are counted only as two-thirds of
In Case 1/94 SA: Dupret SA, a company governed by Belgian                 normal working hours ?
law which is in liquidation, represented by Georges-Albert            (!) OJ No L 45 , 19 . 2 . 1975 , p. 19.
Dal, of the Bussels Bar, receiver, 18 Rue de l'Aurore, 1050           (2) OJ No L 39, 14. 2 . 1976, p. 40.
Brussels, against Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: S. Van Raepenbusch) — application
for authorization to serve a garnishee order on the
Commission of the European Communities — the Court,                   Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Landgericht
composed of G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, F. A.                Dortmund by order of that court of 27 December 1994 in
Schockweiler, P. J. G. Kapteyn, C. Gulmann (Presidents of                    the case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker
Chambers ), G. F. Mancini, C. N. Kakouris, J. C. Moitinho                                       (Case C-3/95 )
de Almeida, J. L. Murray, D. A. O. Edward ( Rapporteur),
                                                                                ( 95/C 54/11 )
A. M. La Pergola and J.-P. Puissochet, Judges; C. O. Lenz,
Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on               Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
10 January 1995, the operative part of which is as                    European Communities by order of the Ninth Civil
follows :
                                                                      Chamber of the Landgericht ( Regional Court) Dortmund of
                                                                      27 December 1994, which was received at the Court
1 . There is no need to give a decision on the                        Registry on 1 1 January 1995, for a preliminary ruling in the
     application;                                                     case of Reisebüro Broede v. Gerd Sandker on the following
                                                                      questions:
2. each party is to bear its own costs.                               does Article 59 of the EEC Treaty preclude a national rule
                                                                      which prohibits an undertaking established in another
(!) OJ No C 218 , 6 . 8 . 1994.                                       Member State from securing judicial recovery of foreign
                                                                      debts on the ground that this activity is reserved under the
                                                                      national rule for persons to whom a special official licence
                                                                      has been issued for that purpose ?


title: Case T-89/04: Actionbrought on 24 February 2004 by C.I. Bieger againstEuropol

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 106/79

         Action brought on 24 February 2004 by C.I. Bieger against Europol
   (Case T-89/04)
   (2004/C 106/155)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   An action against Europol was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 24 February 2004 by C.I. Bieger, residing in Zoetermeer (Netherlands), represented by P. de Casparis and M.F. Baltussen.
   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               1)

               set aside the dismissal of 24 November 2003 by Europol of the appeal brought by C.I. Bieger against the decision of 6 June 2003, and at the same time annul the decision of 6 June 2003;

               2)

               order Europol to extend C.I. Bieger's contract of employment to 1 July 2006;

               3)

               Order Europol to pay the costs of the proceedings.

         Pleas in law and main arguments:
   In support of her application,the applicant pleads infringement of the principle that reasons must be given and argues that Europol exceeded its discretionary power.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 17 September 1997 in Case C-28/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo): Fazenda Pública v. Fricarnes SA (National charges on the marketing of meat - Charge having equivalent effects - Internal taxation - Turnover tax)

text:
C 331 /6                   EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                   1 . 11 . 97
3 . A tax levied only on certain products, which is not                            domestic and imported products according to the
      proportional to the price of those products, is not                          same criteria are covered in principle by Article 95
      charged at each stage of the production and                                  et seq. of the EC Treaty.
      distribution process and is not imposed on the added
       value of the products, is not in the nature of a
       turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33 of the
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388/EEC) of 17 May 1977                          A charge levied without distinction on domestic
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                              and imported products constitutes a charge having
      States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of                         an effect equivalent to a customs duty, prohibited
       value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.                               by Articles 9 and 12 of the Treaty, if the revenue
                                                                                from it is intended to finance activities benefiting
                                                                                only the taxed domestic products and if the
(') OJ C 351 , 30 . 12 . 1995 .                                                    resultant advantages fully offset the burden which
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                            the latter products bear; if those advantages only
                                                                                partly offset the burden borne by the domestic
                                                                                products, the charge constitutes discriminatory
                                                                                internal taxation prohibited by Articles 95 of the
                                                                                Treaty and must be reduced proportionally.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       ( b ) If the activities financed by the charge benefit
                             (Fifth Chamber)                                       domestic products and taxed imported products
                                                                                but the former obtain a proportionally greater
                          of 17 September 1997                                     advantage from them, the charge constitutes, to
                                                                                that extent, a charge having an effect equivalent to
in Case C-28/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from                           a customs duty or discriminatory internal taxation,
the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo ): Fazenda Publica v.                          depending on whether the advantage accruing to
                             Fricarnes SA (')                                      the taxed domestic products fully or only partly
(National charges on the marketing of meat — Charge                                offsets the burden which they bear.
having equivalent effects — Internal taxation — Turnover
                                      tax)
                              ( 97/C 331/10                               2. It is for the national court to undertake the
                                                                             verifications necessary for determining how the
                                                                             contributions in question are to be characterized in
                (Language of the case: Portuguese)                           law. In so doing it will consider:
    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
                                                                             ( a ) whether the revenue from the charge at issue,
                                                                                which is specifically intended to be used to combat
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                diseases of livestock reared on national territory,
                                                                                benefits exclusively animals of national origin or,
                                                                                at least, benefits them proportionally more than
In      Case  C-28/96 — reference           to  the   Court under                  imported animals;
Article 177 of the EC Treaty by the Supremo Tribunal
Administrativo ( Portugal ) for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before that court between Fazenda
Publica and Fricarnes SA on the interpretation of                             ( b) whether the revenue from all the charges at issue is
Articles 9, 12 and 95 of the EC Treaty and Article 33 of                           used for stabilization only of trade with the other
the Sixth Council Directive ( 77/388/EEC ) of 17 May 1977                          Member States in the products which bear the
on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States                              charges;
relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment ( 2 ) — the Court
 ( Fifth Chamber) composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida,                     (c ) whether the institutional integration of the
President of the Chamber, L. Sevon, C. Gulmann, J. P.
                                                                                organizations representing the economic agents
Puissochet and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur), Judges;                                  concerned and the implementation of the national
Advocate General: G. Tesauro, H. von Holstein, Deputy                              and Community aid schemes and financial and
Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on                                   fiscal incentives in favour of the agri-foodstuffs
 17 December 1997, the operative part of which is as                               industry and the distribution of agri-foodstuffs, to
 follows :
                                                                                which part of the revenue from the charges in
                                                                                question is appropriated, benefit only domestic
                                                                                production or whether they benefit such
 1 . ( a ) Pecuniary charges under a general system of                             production proportionally more than imported
           internal charges applying systematically to                             products.
 ---pagebreak--- 1 . 11 . 97                EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 331 /7
3 . A tax levied only on certain products, which is not                    that, where that directive has not been transposed by the
      proportional to the price of those products, is not                  end of the period laid down for that purpose, the appeal
       charged at each stage of the production and                         bodies of the Member States having competence in
       distribution process and is not imposed on the added                relation to procedures for the award of public works
       value of the products, is not in the nature of a                    contracts and public supply contracts may also hear
       turnover tax within the meaning of Article 33 of the                appeals relating to procedures for the award of public
      Sixth Council Directive (77/388IEEC) of 17 May 1977                  service contracts. However, in order to observe the
       on the harmonization of the laws of the Member                      requirement that domestic law must be interpreted in
       States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of                conformity with Directive 921SO and the requirement that
       value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.                       the rights of individuals must be protected effectively, the
                                                                           national court must determine whether the relevant
0 ) OJ C 77, 16 . 3 . 1996 .
                                                                           provisions of its domestic law allow recognition of a right
( 2 ) OJ L 145 , 13 . 6 . 1977, p . 1 .                                    for individuals to bring an appeal in relation to awards of
                                                                           public service contracts. In circumstances such as those
                                                                           arising in the present case, the national court must
                                                                           determine in particular whether such a right of appeal
                                                                           may be exercised before the same bodies as those
                                                                           established to hear appeals concerning the award of public
                                                                           supply contracts and public works contracts.
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                           H OJ C 108 , 13 . 4. 1996 .
                          of 17 September 1997                             ( 2 ) OJ L 209, 24 . 7. 1992, p. 1 .
in Case C-54/96 (reference for a preliminary ruling from
the Vergabeüberwachungsausschuß des Bundes ): Dorsch
Consult Ingenieurgesellschaft mbH v. Bundesbaugesellschaft
                              Berlin mbH ( J )
(Meaning of 'national court or tribunal' for the purposes
of Article 1 77 of the Treaty — Procedures for the award                                   JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
of public service contracts — Directive 92/50/EEC —
                          National review body)                                                       ( First Chamber)
                              ( 97/C 331/11 )                                                      of 17 September 1997
                                                                           in Case C-83/96, (reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                           the Corte Suprema di Cassazione ): Provincia Autonoma di
                  (Language of the case: German)                           Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provindiale di Trento v.
                                                                                Dega di Depretto Gino Snc (')
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be            (Consumer protection — Labelling of foodstuffs —
                                                                                Council Directive 79/112/EEC)
            published in the European Court Reports)
                                                                                ( 97/C 331/12 )
In Case C-54/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
of the EC Treaty from the Vergabeiiberwachungsausschufi                                      (Language of the case: Italian)
des      Bundes       ( Federal      Public  Procurement     Awards
Supervisory Board ) ( Germany), for a preliminary ruling
in the proceedings pending before that body between                            (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Dorsch         Consult        Ingenieurgesellschaft     mbH      and                   published in the European Court Reports)
Bundesbaugesellschaft Berlin mbH — on the interpretation
of Article 41 of Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the                    In Case C-83/96 : reference to the Court under Article 177
award of public service contracts (2 ) — the Court,                        of the EC Treaty by the Corte Suprema di Cassazione
composed of: G. C. Rodriguez Iglesias, President, G. F.                    ( Italy ) for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending
Mancini, J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, J. L. Murray and L.                    before that court between, on the one hand, Provincia
Sevon (Presidents of Chambers), C. N. Kakouris, P. J. G.                   Autonoma di Trento and Ufficio del Medico Provinciale di
Kapteyn, C. Gulmann, D. A. O. Edward, J. -P. Puissochet,                   Trento and, on the other, Dega di Depretto Gino Snc, on
G. Hirsch, P. Jann ( Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, M.                         the interpretation of Article 3 ( 1 ) ( 6 ) of Council Directive
Wathelet and R. Schintgen, Judges; G. Tesauro, Advocate                    79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on the approximation
General; H. A. Riihl, Principal Administrator, for the                     of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in                   presentation and advertising of foodstuffs for sale to the
which it has ruled :                                                       ultimate consumer ( 2 ), — the Court ( First Chamber)
                                                                           composed of: L. Sevon, President of the Chamber, P. Jann
                                                                           and M. Wathelet ( Rapporteur ), Judges; P. Leger, Advocate
It does not follow from Article 41 of Council Directive                    General; L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, has
92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992 relating to the coordination                     given a judgment on 17 September 1997, in which it has
of procedures for the award of public service contracts                    ruled :


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) of 21 January 1999 in Case C-150/97: Commission of the European Communities v. Portuguese Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 85/337/EEC)

text:
C 86/2                 EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                    27.3.1999
accounts presented by the Member States in respect of the            composed of: G. Hirsch (Rapporteur), President of the
expenditure for 1991 of the European Agricultural                    Second Chamber, acting for the President of the Sixth
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), Guarantee                       Chamber, G. F. Mancini, J. L. Murray, H. Ragnemalm and
Section (OJ L 352, 31.12.1994, p. 82), inasmuch as it                K. M. Ioannou, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,
refuses to charge to the EAGGF the sum of DEM                        Advocate-General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
116 633 582,10 Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber), composed                 judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it has ruled:
of: P. J. G. Kapteyn, President of the Chamber, G. Hirsch
(Rapporteur), H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen and K. M.
Ioannou, Judges; A. La Pergola, Advocate-General; H. von             1. Standard bank conditions, in so far as they enable
Holstein, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a                banks, in contracts for the opening of a
judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:                                 current-account credit facility, to change the interest
                                                                          rate at any time by reason of changes occurring in the
                                                                          money market, and to do so by means of a notice
1. Dismisses the action.                                                  displayed on their premises or in such manner as they
                                                                          consider most appropriate, do not have as their object
                                                                          or effect the restriction of competition within the
2. Orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the                      meaning of Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
     costs.
                                                                     2. Standard bank conditions relating to the provision of
(1) OJ C 137, 3.6.1995.                                                   general guarantees to secure current-account credit
                                                                          facilities, which derogate from the general law
                                                                          concerning guarantees, such as the rules in the main
                                                                          proceedings, are not, taken as a whole, liable to affect
                                                                          trade between Member States within the meaning of
                                                                          Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty.
                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                     3. The application of the abovementioned standard bank
                        (Sixth Chamber)                                   conditions does not constitute abuse of a dominant
                      of 21 January 1999                                  position within the meaning of Article 86 of the
                                                                          Treaty.
in Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96 (references for a
preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Genova): Carlo
                                                                     (1) OJ C 247, 24.8.1996.
Bagnasco and Others v. Banca Popolare di Novara soc.
coop. arl (BPN) (C-215/96), Cassa di Risparmio di
        Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige) (C-216/96) (1)
(Competition Ð Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty Ð
Standard bank conditions for current-account credit
    facilities and for the provision of general guarantees)
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                         (1999/C 86/03)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 21 January 1999
                 (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                     in    Case     C-150/97: Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities v. Portuguese Republic (1)
  (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be       (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
           published in the European Court Reports)                                      Directive 85/337/EEC)
                                                                                (1999/C 86/04)
In Joined Cases C-215/96 and C-216/96: references to the
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty from the Tribu-                            (Language of the case: Portuguese)
nale di Genova (Genoa District Court) (Italy) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between Carlo Bagnasco and Others and Banca
Popolare di Novara soc. coop. arl (BPN) (C-215/96),                    (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
Cassa di Risparmio di Genova e Imperia SpA (Carige)                             published in the European Court Reports)
(C-216/96) Ð on the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86
of the EC Treaty in relation to certain standard bank
conditions which the Associazione Bancaria Italiana                  In Case C-150/97: Commission of the European
imposes on its members when contracts are concluded for              Communities (Agent: Francisco de Sousa Fialho) v.
current-account credit facilities and for the provision of           Portuguese Republic (Agents: Luís Fernandes and Pedro
general guarantees Ð the Court (Sixth Chamber),                      Portugal) Ð application for a declaration that, by failing
 ---pagebreak--- 27.3.1999             EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                       C 86/3
to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions          declaration that, by failing to adopt and/or communicate,
necessary to comply fully and properly with Council                  within the prescribed period, all the measures necessary to
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment               comply with Article 6 of Council Directive 91/157/EEC of
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the         18 March 1991 on batteries and accumulators containing
environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40), the Portuguese              certain dangerous substances (OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38),
Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under the third        the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
paragraph of Article 189 of the EC Treaty and Article 12             under that article Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed
of that directive Ð the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed              of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, P. Jann, J. C.
of: J.-P. Puissochet, President of the Chamber, J. C.                Mointinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann (Rapporteur) and
Moitinho de Almeida, C. Gulmann, L. Sevón (Rapporteur)               D. A. O. Edward, Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate-General;
and M. Wathelet, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate-General; R.             L. Hewlett, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 January                 judgment on 21 January 1999, in which it:
1999, in which it:
1. Declares that, by adopting a transitional provision by            1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the
     virtue of which national legislation transposing                     prescribed period, all the measures necessary to
     Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the                  comply with Article 6 of Council Directive
     assessment of the effects of certain public and private              91/157/EEC of 18 March 1991 on batteries and
     projects on the environment, adopted after 3 July                    accumulators containing certain dangerous substances,
     1988, the deadline for transposition, is not applicable              the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its
     to projects in respect of which the consent procedure                obligations under that article.
     had been initiated before the entry into force of the
     national law transposing that directive but after 3 July
     1988, the Portuguese Republic has failed to fulfil its
     obligations under that directive.                               2. Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.
2. Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.                  (1) OJ C 357, 22.11.1997.
(1) OJ C 181, 14.6.1997.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                        (Fourth Chamber)
                       (Fifth Chamber)                                                     of 21 January 1999
                     of 21 January 1999                              in    Case    C-416/97: Commission of the            European
in    Case   C-347/97: Commission of the European                                  Communities v. Italian Republic (1)
           Communities v. Kingdom of Belgium (1)
                                                                     (Failure of Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð
(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations Ð               Directives 93/119/EC, 94/42/EC, 94/16/EC and
Directive 91/157/EEC on batteries and accumulators                   93/118/EC Ð Non-transposition within the prescribed
containing certain dangerous substances Ð Failure by a                                         time-limits)
Member State to adopt programmes provided for in
                  Article 6 of the Directive)                                                (1999/C 86/06)
                        (1999/C 86/05)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
                (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-347/97: Commission of the European
Communities (Agent: Götz zur Hausen) v. Kingdom of                   In Case C-416/97: Commission of the European
Belgium (Agent: Annie Snoecx) Ð application for a                    Communities (Agent: Francesco P. Ruggeri Laderchi) v.


title: Case F-18/10: Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Capidis v Commission

text:
               22.5.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 134/56

         Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Capidis v Commission
   (Case F-18/10)
   2010/C 134/94
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Georges Capidis (Zellik, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant in the form of downgrading.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision imposing a disciplinary sanction on the applicant in the form of downgrading by one grade, as provided for in Article 9(1)(f) of Annex IX o the Staff Regulations;

               —

               Order the European Commission to pay the costs.


title: Case C-8/11: Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG

text:
               14.4.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 109/8

         Order of the President of the Court of 31 January 2012 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Oldenburg — Germany) — Johann Bilker, Heidrun Ohle, Ursula Kohls-Ohle v EWE AG
   (Case C-8/11) (1)

   2012/C 109/18
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 113, 9.4.2011.