title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Eighth Chamber of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, by order of that court of 7 October 1998 in the case of Angelo Ferlini v. Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (Case C-411/98)

text:
C 20/18                EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                                  23.1.1999
1. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                Court), Luxembourg, of 7 October 1998, which was
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   received at the Court Registry on 18 November 1998, for
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 a preliminary ruling in the case of Angelo Ferlini v. Centre
     Directive 77/388/EEC (1) exempt from VAT a supply                Hospitalier de Luxembourg, on the following question:
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially
     have any interest in the immoveable property, where
     that person enters into an agreement for lease of that
     immovable property with a landlord and/or accepts                Having regard to the principle of non-discrimination
     the grant of a lease by the landlord in return for a sum         between nationals of Member States of the European
     of money paid by the landlord?                                   Union, a principle embodied in Articles 6 and 48 of the
                                                                      EC Treaty and, as regards freedom of movement for
                                                                      workers within the Community, in Regulation (EEC)
                                                                      No 1612/68 (1) of the Council of 15 October 1968
                                                                      freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
2. Following the decision of the Court in Case C-63/92                as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 312/76 of
     (Lubbock Fine & Co v. Commissioners of Customs                   9 February 1976 and, as regards social security, in
     and Excise), does Article 13(B)(b) of EC Council                 Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2) of the Council of 14 June
     Directive 77/388/EEC exempt from VAT a supply                    1971 on the application of social security schemes to
     made by a person (the person') who does not initially           employed persons, to self-employed persons and to
     have any interest in the immovable property, where               members of their families, as amended and updated by
     that person:                                                     Council Regulation (EEC) No 2001/83 (3) of 2 June 1983,
     (a) enters into an option agreement in relation to               and
          leases of that immovable property in return for a
          sum of money being paid to the person, on terms
          that the money will remain in a special account as
          security for its obligations under the option               having regard to Article 85(1) of the EC Treaty which
          agreement; and/or                                           prohibits all agreements between undertakings, decisions
                                                                      by associations of undertakings and concerted practices
                                                                      which may affect trade between Member States and which
                                                                      have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or
     (b) subsequently exercises the options under the                 distortion of competition within the common market,
          option agreement and accepts the grant of leases
          of the immovable property in return for the
          release of the money in the special account to the
          person?                                                     are the Grand-Ducal Regulation of 31 December 1974
                                                                      (MeÂmorial A, No 95 of 31 December 1974, p. 2398), as
                                                                      amended, whose purpose is to determine, in
(1) Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the                implementation of Articles 6 and 13 of the Code des
    harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to        Assurance Sociales, benefits in kind in the event of illness
    turnover taxes Ð Common system of value added tax:                and maternity, the scales of hospital fees as from 1 January
    uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1).          1989 which are to apply to persons and organisations not
                                                                      affiliated to the national social security scheme, and the
                                                                      UCM (4) circular of 1 December 1988 on the
                                                                      apportionment of the components of flat-rate childbirth
                                                                      charges as from 1 January 1989 and the practices of the
                                                                      EHL (5), whereby it applies to persons and organisations
                                                                      not affiliated to the national social security scheme and to
                                                                      officials of the European Communities affiliated to the
                                                                      Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme uniform scales of fees for
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Eighth Chamber              medical and hospital expenses which are higher than those
of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement, Luxembourg, by order                applied to residents affiliated to the national social
of that court of 7 October 1998 in the case of Angelo                 security scheme, compatible with Community law?
         Ferlini v. Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg
                        (Case C-411/98)                               (1 ) OJ English Special Edition 1968(II), p. 475.
                                                                      (2 ) OJ English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.
                         (1999/C 20/29)                               (3 ) OJ L 230, 22.8.1983, p. 6.
                                                                      (4 ) Union des Caisses de Maladie (Luxembourgeoise)
                                                                           [Luxembourg Association of Sicknes Funds].
                                                                      (5) Entente des Hôpitaux Luxembourgeois [Luxembourg
                                                                           Hospitals Group].
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by an order of the Eighth
Chamber of the Tribunal d'Arrondissement (District


title: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial Tribunal, Leeds, by decision of that court of 5 May 1998, in the case of G. C. Allen and others against Amalgamated Construction Co. Limited (Case C-234/98)

text:
C 278/18              EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                          5.9.98
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Industrial                     (vi) after being employed by company B the
Tribunal, Leeds, by decision of that court of 5 May 1998,                      employees carry out work for both companies A
in the case of G. C. Allen and others against                                  and B as needed by the local management who
          Amalgamated Construction Co. Limited                                 are responsible for both companies;
                        (Case C-234/98)
                         (98/C 278/30)                                   (vii) the work undertaken was continuous, there was
                                                                               no suspension of activities at any time or any
                                                                               change in the manner in which they were
                                                                               conducted.
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by a decision of the Industrial
Tribunal, Leeds, of 5 May 1998, which was received at               (1) Council Directive 77/187/EEC of 14 February 1977 on the
the Court Registry on 3 July 1998, for a preliminary                    approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
ruling in the case of G. C. Allen and others against                    the safeguarding of employees' rights in the event of transfer
                                                                        of undertakings, businesses or parts of businesses (OJ L 61,
Amalgamated Construction Co. Limited, on the following
                                                                        5.3.1977, p. 26).
questions:
1. Is the Acquired Rights Directive (77/187/EEC) (1)
    capable of applying to two companies in the same
    corporate group which have common ownership,
    management, premises and work or are such
    companies a single undertaking for the purpose of the           Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Arios Pagos
    Directive? In particular, can there be a transfer of an         by judgment of that court of 12 May 1998 in the case of
    undertaking for the purposes of the Directive when              Panagis Neophytos Pythagoras Pafitis and Others and
    company A transfers a substantial part of its labour                       Trapeza Kentrikis Ellados AE and Others
    force to company B in the same corporate group.
                                                                                (Case C-235/98)
                                                                                (98/C 278/31)
2. If the answer to question 1 is in the affirmative what
    are the criteria for deciding whether there has been
    such a transfer? In particular, has there been a transfer
    of undertaking in the following circumstances:                  Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                    European Communities by an order of the Arios Pagos
                                                                    (Supreme Court of Cassation) of 12 May 1998, which was
    (i)   over a period of time the workers involved have           received at the Court Registry on 6 July 1998, for a
          been dismissed from company A, purportedly                preliminary ruling in the case of Panagis Neophytos
          for redundancy, and offered employment                    Pythagoras Pafitis and Others and Trapeza Kentrikis
          with associated company B carrying out a                  Ellados AE and Others, pending before it, on the
          geographical distinct undertaking or part of the          following question:
          undertaking of company A, namely the driving
          of mine tunnels;
                                                                    Does a dispute arising out of an increase in the share
    (ii)  no      transfer   of   premises,     management,         capital of a public limited liability banking company and
          infrastructure, materials or assets occurred              the allocation of the new shares, which were the subject
          between company A and B and the majority of               of decisions taken under temporary administration by a
          significant assets used by both companies in the          temporary administrator, imposed on that company by the
          work of driving main tunnels is supplied by a             supervisory authority (Governor of the Bank of Greece),
          third party, the mine operator;                           where that dispute subsists solely and exclusively as
                                                                    between the company and the new shareholders who
                                                                    acquired the new shares, on the one hand, and certain of
    (iii) company A remains the sole contractor with the
                                                                    its old shareholders, on the other, come within the vertical
          third-party client which engaged it to work on
                                                                    relationship of individuals and the State or State bodies so
          construction projects which were undertaken on
                                                                    as to require under the third paragraph of Article 189 of
          a rolling' basis;
                                                                    the EC Treaty the direct application, in order to deal with
                                                                    the dispute in question, of the provisions of the
    (iv) there was little or no contemporaneity between             abovementioned Second Council Directive 77/91/EEC (1),
          the movement of the workers from company A                even before the Member State which is an addressee of the
          to company B and the beginning and/or end of              Directive has transposed the Directive into national law?
          the contracts under which the work was
          performed;
                                                                    (1) OJ L 26, 30.1.1977, p. 1.
    (v)   company A and company B share the same
          management and premises;


title: Action brought on 27 December 1995 by TAT European Airlines against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-236/95)

text:
No C 64/20            EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                      2 . 3 . 96
— has rules which inhibit direct access to Community                Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
    medical specialists and inhibit advertising              by
    Community medical specialists to the public.
                                                                    The applicant, a competitor company of Compagnie
                                                                    Nationale Air France in the international air lines market,
At the same time as the complaint the applicant requested
interim measures which the Commission rejected . The                challenges the Commission 's Decision authorizing the
applicant made further requests for interim measures in             second of the three tranches of Air France's capital increase,
several letters to the Commission, with which he provided           approved by the Commission on 27 July 1994, as a form of
                                                                    State aid .
supplementary factual and legal information in support of
his requests. These applications include, inter alia, a request
that the Commission reconsider its first refusal to grant
interim measures in the light of new factual and legal              The 1994 Decision subjects the payment of the second and
information . The Commission rejected the applicant's               third tranches of the capital increase to the fulfilment of 13
further requests for interim measures by letter dated               obligations. The applicant submits that the disputed
16 October 1995 , which constitutes the contested                   Decision has been taken without any consideration of the
decision .                                                          fact that three of the said obligations have not been
                                                                    respected by the French authorities .
The applicant alleges an infringement of Article 190 of the
EC Treaty. Concretely, the contested decision does not              The first obligation is aimed at preventing any transfer of the
contain any statement of reasons for which the part of the          aid to Air Inter by the setting up of a holding company which
applicant's complaint alleging unlawful anti-competitive            would have a majority shareholding in both companies . It is
conduct by the GMC, which prevents direct access by                 pointed out that as part of its strategy the Air France Group,
Community medical specialists to the market in medical              began the procedure which will lead to the merger on
services in the United Kingdom, was rejected in the light of        1 January 1997 of Air Inter with Air France's European
the principles established by the Court of Justice in its           profit centre immediately after the 1994 Decision. In fact,
judgment given on 10 May 1995 in Case C-384/93 Alpine               Air France and Air Inter continued to hold shares in the
Investments, as stated in paragraph 1 of the                        same undertaking and pursued their joint initiatives . In
abovementioned letter .                                             these circumstances Air . France and Air Inter form one
                                                                    economic unit, so that Air Inter must inevitably have
                                                                    benefited from the aid before the adoption of the
                                                                    Decision .
                                                                    Secondly, Air France has ignored the second obligation,
                                                                    aimed at preventing it from applying tariffs below those of
                                                                    its competitors for an equivalent supply on the routes which
Action brought on 27 December 1995 by TAT European                  it operates, by deviating by between 15 % and 74 % relative
Airlines against the Commission of the European                     to other fares on some routes in which Air France takes
                          Communities
                                                                    advantage of a price leadership.
                       ( Case T-236/95 )
                          ( 96/C 64/39
                                                                    The applicant submits that the French authorities have not
                                                                    complied with the obligation aimed at ensuring that the
               (Language of the case: English)                      traffic distribution rules for the Paris airport system should
                                                                    be modified, as soon as possible after the adoption of 1994
                                                                    Decision, in accordance with the Commission's Decision of
An action against the Commission of the European                    27 April 1994 on the opening of the Orly-London link .
Communities was brought before the Court of First
Instance of the European Communities on 27 December
1995 by TAT European Airlines, represented by Antoine               Finally, the French authorities have taken no measure to
Winckler and Romano Subiotto, of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen            ensure that the work required to adapt the two terminals at
& Hamilton, with an address for service in Luxembourg at            Orly carried out by Aeroports de Paris and a possible
the Chambers of Elvinger & Hoss, 15 Cote d'Eich.                    saturation of one or other of those terminals, do not affect
                                                                    competitive conditions to the detriment of the companies
                                                                    operating there . On the contrary, the circumstances and
The applicant claims that the Court should :                        timing of the decisions relating to this question leave no
                                                                    doubt that the adaptation of the Orly terminal was
— annul Commission Decision C 23/94 of 21 June 1995 ,               organized precisely in such a way as to discriminate against
    concerning the payments of the second tranche of aid in         competitors of the Air France Group .
    favour of Air France approved by Commission Decision
    of 27 July 1994,
— order the Commission to pay the costs .


title: Case T-224/09: Action brought on 5 June 2009 — CEVA v Commission

text:
               29.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 205/40

         Action brought on 5 June 2009 — CEVA v Commission
   (Case T-224/09)
   2009/C 205/74
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: J.-M. Peyrical, lawyer)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

      Form of order sought

               —

               principally, declare that no contractual link exists between the European Commission and CEVA (European Research Center for Algae) and, consequently,

               —

               annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;

               —

               in the alternative, find that no statement of reasons has been provided for enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009;

               —

               declare that there is a risk of unjust enrichment of the Commission in the event that CEVA reimburses the sum of EUR 179 896 together with default interest;

               —

               consequently, annul enforcement order No 3230900440 of the European Commission of 6 April 2009.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of the enforcement order by which the Commission demanded reimbursement of all the payments made on account to the applicant in the framework of contract PROTOP No EVK3-CT-2002-30004 relating to a research and technological development project.
   In support of its action, the applicant puts forward three pleas alleging:

               —

               that the enforcement order is inadmissible since no contractual link exists between the applicant and the Commission;

               —

               failure to provide a sufficient statement of reasons, since the Commission relied on an alleged infringement of the contractual obligations by the applicant without however setting out the legal and factual reasons in support of that claim;

               —

               infringement of the principle of unjust enrichment, since the reimbursement in full of the sum demanded by the Commission means that it would be unjustly enriched insofar as it has obtained work and studies by the applicant without however paying for them to be carried out.


title: Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the Commission of the European Communities (Case T-73/95)

text:
 13 . 5 . 95        [ EN                 Official Journal of the European Communities                                        No C 119/27
Action brought on 24 February 1995 by Estabelecimentos              Action brought on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes
Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA, Sociedade Comercial, against the           against the Council of the European Union and the
          Commission of the European Communities                             Commission of the European Communities
                         Case T-73/95 )                                                      (Case T-76/95 )
                          95/C 119/51 )                                                        ( 95/C 119/52 )
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
             (Language of the case: Portuguese)
                                                                    An action against the Council of the European Union and
                                                                    the Commission of the European Communities was brought
An action against the Commission of the European                    before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities was brought before the Court of First                   Communities on 3 March 1995 by Heinz-Josef Keimes,
Instance of the European Communities on 24 February                 Heinsberg-Dremmen ( Federal Republik of Germany),
 1995 by Estabelecimentos Isidoro M. Oliveira, SA,                  represented by Dr Lukanow, Rechtsanwalt, Euskirchen,
Sociedade Comercial, whose registered office is in Avenida          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers
de Olivença, Montijo, Portugal, represented by Dr Joaquim           of Dupong & Associés, 14a , Rue des Bains .
Marques de Ascensâo, of the Lisbon Bar, whose Chambers
are in Av. Eng. Duarte Pacheco — Amoreiras, Torre 2 ,               The applicant claims that the Court should :
 1 0-S 1,1000 Lisbon, with an address for service at the Uniâo
de Bancos Portugueses SA, c/o Sr Alberto de Sousa, 12, rue          order the defendants to pay to the applicant compensation
de la Grève, 1643 Luxembourg.                                       for the period of five milk years from 1 April 1988 in the
                                                                    amount of DM 58 937,01 , together with 8% interest
                                                                    thereon from 17 December 1983 .
The applicant claims that the Court should :
                                                                    Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
annul in part the Decision of the Commission relating to file       The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those in
No 870708/P1 , notified on 28 December 1994 .                       Case T-20/94 .
Pleas in law and main arguments adduced in support:
The applicant, a Portuguese commercial company, which
had organized and conducted, on the basis of a project              Action brought on 6 March 1995 by NMB France Sàrl,
                                                                    NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd and NMB Italia Sri
submitted in 1986 , a professional training programme,
                                                                       against the Commission of the European Communities
challenges the Commission's refusal to declare eligible for
the purposes of the European Social Fund certain                                             ( Case T-78/95 )
expenditure relating to that programme .                                                        95/C 119/53
It points out that, by Decision of 27 June 1989 , the                               (Language of the case: English)
defendant institution had already held to be ineligible part
of the amount designated for financing the programme and            An action against the Commission of the European
that that Decision was annulled by judgment of the Court of         Communities was brought before the Court of First
Justice of 7 May 1991 in Case C-304/89 .                            Instance of the European Communities on 6 March 1 995 by
                                                                   NMB France Sàrl, NMB-Minebea-GmbH, NMB (UK) Ltd
                                                                    and NMB Italia Sri, represented by Ian S. Forrester and
However, eight years after the submission of the project,          Aristotelis Kaplanidis, with an address for service in
seven years after the execution of the training programme          Luxembourg at the Chambers of Maître Marc Loesch,
and four years after the judgment of the Court of Justice           8 Rue Goethe, 1011 Luxembourg.
annulling the Commission's Decision of 27 June 1989, the
Commission has now adopted a new Decision, even more
severe for the financial point of view, than that annulled by      The appliclants claim that the Court should:
the Court of Justice.                                               1 , annul Commission Decision 94/95 1 /EC in so far as it
                                                                         denies to the applicants partial refunds of anti-dumping
In so doing, the defendant has infringed the principle which             duties collected in 1992 on imports of ball bearings from
prohibits a reformatio in peius. Similarly, it has infringed the         Thailand, on the basis that the said anti-dumping duties
principles of legal certainty and the protection of legitimate           should be treated as a cost to be deducted in determining
expectation, and also the criterion of a 'reasonable                     export price, declaring Article 2 ( 8 ) ( b ) (ii ) of Regulation
period'.                                                                 (EEC ) No 2423/88 inapplicable under Article 184 of the
                                                                         EC Treaty to the extent necessary for the purpose;
                                                                   2 , take such further or other steps as justice may
                                                                         require;


title: Case C-307/12: Action brought on 25 June 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria

text:
               29.9.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 295/17

         Action brought on 25 June 2012 — European Commission v Republic of Bulgaria
   (Case C-307/12)
   2012/C 295/28
   Language of the case: Bulgarian

      Parties

      Applicant: European Commission (represented by: P. Hetsch, D. Düsterhaus, S. Petrova)

      Defendant: Republic of Bulgaria

      Form of order sought

               —

               Declare that, by not adopting the legal or administrative provisions necessary in order to render national law compatible with Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain Directives, (1) or at least by not notifying those provisions to the Commission, the Republic of Bulgaria has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 40 of that directive;

               —

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria, pursuant to Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment of EUR 15 200,80 per day, calculated from the day on which judgment is delivered in the present proceedings, on account of its failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures adopted in order to render its national law compatible with Directive 2008/98/EC;

               —

               Order the Republic of Bulgaria to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The period for the adoption of measures to transpose the directive expired on 12 December 2010.

      (1)  OJ L 312, 22.11.2008, p. 3.


title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 21 April 2004 in Case T-172/01 M v Court of Justice of the European Communities (Spouse divorced from a former member of a Community institution, since deceased — Maintenance — Verbal agreement between the former spouses — Law applicable to the formal requirements for the agreement and the admissibility of the means of proving its existence (Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities))

text:
               30.4.2004

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 118/36

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   (First Chamber)
   of 21 April 2004
   in Case T-172/01 M v Court of Justice of the European Communities (1)

   (Spouse divorced from a former member of a Community institution, since deceased - Maintenance - Verbal agreement between the former spouses - Law applicable to the formal requirements for the agreement and the admissibility of the means of proving its existence (Article 27 of Annex VIII to the Staff Regulations of the European Communities))
   (2004/C 118/75)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case T-172/01, M, resident in Athens (Greece), represented by G. Vandersanden and H. Tagaras, lawyers, against the Court of Justice of the European Communities (Agent: M. Schauss, assisted by T Papazissi) – application for annulment of the refusal to grant a survivor's pension based on the service of her ex-husband – the Court of First Instance (First Chamber), composed of: A.W.H. Meij, President, and N.J. Forwood and H. Legal, Judges; Registrar: I Natsinas, gave a judgment on 21 April 2004, in which it:

               1.

               rejected the application; and

               2.

               ordered each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 317, 10.11.2001


title: Case C-410/12 P: Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (Appeal — Community trade mark — Application for registration of the Community word mark medi — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of distinctiveness — Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Distortion of the evidence — None)

text:
               21.12.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 377/3

         Order of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 16 October 2013 — medi GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   (Case C-410/12 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Community trade mark - Application for registration of the Community word mark medi - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctiveness - Article 7(1)(b) and 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Distortion of the evidence - None)
   2013/C 377/04
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: medi GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: D. Terheggen, Rechtsanwalt)

      Other party: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider, acting as Agent)

      Re:

   Appeal against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) of 12 July 2012 in Case T-470/09 medi v OHIM by which the General Court dismissed the action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 1 October 2009 (Case R 692/2008-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign ‘medi’ as a Community trade mark — Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1) — Distinctive character of the word sign ‘medi’

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The appeal is dismissed.

               2.

               medi GmbH & Co. KG is ordered to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 331, 27.10.2012.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 October 2001 in Case C-441/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen): Riksskatteverket v Soghra Gharehveran (Directive 80/987/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer — Scope of the exclusion relating to Sweden provided for in point G of Section I of the Annex to the Directive — Designation of the State as liable to pay guaranteed wage claims — Effect on Directive 80/987/EEC)

text:
C 348/4                   EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                            8.12.2001
personal communications (OJ 1996 L 20, p. 59), in conjunc-                   (Agents: E. De Persio and D. Triantafyllou) — application for
tion with the second and third paragraphs of Article 3a of                   annulment of the Commission decision, notified to the Italian
Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June 1990 on                           Republic by letter SG(99) D/6463 of 6 August 1999, published
competition in the markets for telecommunications services                   in the Official Journal of the European Communities of
(OJ 1990 L 192, p. 10) as amended by Directive 96/2/EC, the                  23 October 1999 (OJ 1999 C 306, p. 2), to initiate the
Helenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations under the EC               procedure under Article 88(2) EC concerning State aid C 64/99
Treaty and those Directives — the Court (Sixth Chamber),                     (ex NN 68/99) — Italyl — granted to undertakings in the
composed of: N. Colneric, President of the Second Chamber,                   Tirrenia di Navigazione group, in so far as that decision rules
acting for the President of the Sixth Chamber, C. Gulmann                    on the suspension of the aid in question — the Court,
(Rapporteur), R. Schintgen, V. Skouris, and J.N. Cunha Rodri-                composed of: G.C. Rodrı́guez Iglesias, President, P. Jann,
gues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General;                      F. Macken, N. Colneric and S. von Bahr (Presidents of
R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 October 2001,                Chambers), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet (Rapporteur),
in which it:                                                                 L. Sevón, M. Wathelet, V. Skouris and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues,
                                                                             Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; H. von Holstein,
                                                                             Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
1.    Declares that by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,       9 October 2001, in which it:
      all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary
      to comply with Article 2(1) and (2) of Commission Directive
      96/2/EC of 16 January 1996 amending Directive                          1.    Dismisses the application by the Commission of the European
      90/388/EEC with regard to mobile and personal communi-                       Communities, based on Article 91(1) of the Rules of Procedure
      cations, in conjunction with the second and third paragraphs of              of the Court of Justice, for a declaration that there is no need to
      Article 3a of Commission Directive 90/388/EEC of 28 June                     adjudicate or that the action is inadmissible;
      1990 on competition in the markets for telecommunications
      services, the Hellenic Republic failed to fulfil its obligations       2.    Declares that the proceedings are to continue as to the substance
      under those Directives;                                                      of the case;
                                                                             3.    Reserves the costs.
2.    Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.
                                                                             (1) OJ C 20 of 22.1.2000.
(1) OJ C 6 of 8.1.2000, OJ C 366 of 18.12.1999.
                                                                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                                  (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                of 18 October 2001
                          of 9 October 2001
                                                                             in Case C-441/99 (reference for a preliminary ruling
in Case C-400/99: Italian Republic v Commission of the                       from the Högsta domstolen): Riksskatteverket v Soghra
                     European Communities (1)                                                            Gharehveran (1)
(Action for annulment — State aid — Aid to a maritime                        (Directive 80/987/EEC — Approximation of the laws of the
transport undertaking — Public service contract — Exiting                    Member States relating to the protection of employees in the
aid or new aid — Initiation of the procedure under                           event of the insolvency of their employer — Scope of the
Article 88(2) EC — Obligation to suspend — No need to                        exclusion relating to Sweden provided for in point G of
                   adjudicate or inadmissibility)                            Section I of the Annex to the Directive — Designation of the
                                                                             State as liable to pay guaranteed wage claims — Effect on
                                                                                Directive 80/987/EEC)
                            (2001/C 348/07)
                                                                                (2001/C 348/08)
                      (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Swedish)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                     in the European Court Reports)                          (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-400/99: Italian Republic (Agent: U. Leanza, assisted               In Case C-441/99: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
by P.G. Ferri) v Commission of the European Communities                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Högsta domstolen
 ---pagebreak--- 8.12.2001                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                             C 348/5
(Supreme Court), Sweden for a preliminary ruling in the                                      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
proceedings pending before that court between Riksskattever-
ket and Soghra Gharehveran — on the interpretation of
Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the                                              (Fourth Chamber)
approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to
the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of                                      of 11 October 2001
their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by the Act
concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of
Austria, the Republic of Finland and the Kingdom of Sweden                 in Case C-457/99: Commission of the European Communi-
and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the European                                      ties v Hellenic Republic (1)
Union is founded (OJ 1994 C 241, p. 21, and OJ 1995 L 1,
p. 1) — the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
                                                                           (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations —
President of the Chamber, A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), L. Sevón,
M. Wathelet and C.W.A. Timmermans, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed,                  Directive 95/69/EC — Animal nutrition — Non-implemen-
                                                                                tation)
Advocate General; R. Grass, for the Registrar, has given a
judgment on 18 October 2001, in which it has ruled:
                                                                                (2001/C 348/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Greek)
1.    Point G of Section I of the Annex to Council Directive
      80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
      the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of                              in the European Court Reports)
      employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, as
      amended by the Act concerning the conditions of accession of
      the Republic of Austria, the Republic of Finland and the
      Kingdom of Sweden and the adjustments to the Treaties on             In Case C-457/99: Commission of the European Communities
      which the European Union is founded, is to be interpreted as         (Agent: M. Condou-Durande) v Hellenic Republic (Agents:
      not allowing the Kingdom of Sweden to exclude from the group         I.-K. Chalkias and D. Tsagkaraki) — application for a declar-
      of persons covered by the wage payment guarantee provided for        ation that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
      by the Directive employees whose close relative owned, less than     administrative provisions necessary to comply with:
      six months before the petition in insolvency, at least 20 % of
      the shares of the company employing them, when the employees
      concerned did not themselves have any share in the capital of        —     Council Directive 95/53/EC of 25 October 1995 fixing
      that company.                                                              the principles governing the organisation of official
                                                                                inspections in the field of animal nutrition (OJ 1995
                                                                                L 265, p. 17),
                                                                           —     Council Directive 95/69/EC of 22 December 1995 laying
2.    Where a Member State has designated itself as liable to fulfil             down the conditions and arrangements for approving
      the obligation to meet wage and salary claims guaranteed under             and registering certain establishments and intermediaries
      Directive 80/987/EEC, an employee whose spouse was owner                   operating in the animal feed sector and amending
      of the company employing her is entitled to rely on the right to           Directives 70/524/EEC, 74/63/EEC, 79/373/EEC and
      claim pay against the Member State concerned before a national             82/471/EEC (OJ 1995 L 332, p. 15), and
      court, notwithstanding the fact that, in breach of the Directive,
      the legislation of that Member State expressly excludes from the
      group of persons covered by the guarantee employees whose            —     Commission Directive 97/72/EC of 15 December 1997
      close relative was owner of at least 20 % of the shares of the             amending Council Directive 70/524/EEC concerning
      company but who did not themselves have any share in the                   additives in feedingstuffs (OJ 1997 L 351, p. 55),
      capital of that company.
                                                                           the Hellenic Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under
                                                                           the EC Treaty and those Directives — the Court (Fourth
                                                                           Chamber), composed of: S. von Bahr, President of the Chamb-
                                                                           er, D.A.O. Edward and A. La Pergola (Rapporteur), Judges;
                                                                           S. Alber, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a
(1) OJ C 34 of 5.2.2000.                                                   judgment on 11 October 2001, in which it:
                                                                           1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period,
                                                                                the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to
                                                                                comply with Council Directive 95/69/EC of 22 December
                                                                                1995 laying down the conditions and arrangements for
                                                                                approving and registering certain establishments and intermedi-
                                                                                aries operating in the animal feed sector and amending


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 19 September 2000 in Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 (references for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif, (Administrative Court) Nantes (C-177/99) and Melun (181/99): Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire (C-177/99) and Sanofi Synthelabo, formerly Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Val-de-Marne (C-181/99) (VAT — Deduction of tax — Exclusion of the right of deduction — Entertainment costs — Proportionality)

text:
25.11.2000               EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                            C 335/7
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                                                                                (Sixth Chamber)
                       of 19 September 2000
                                                                                of 21 September 2000
in Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99 (references for
a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Administratif,
(Administrative Court) Nantes (C-177/99) and Melun
(181/99): Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux                   in Case C-222/98 (reference for a preliminary ruling
de Maine-et-Loire (C-177/99) and Sanofi Synthelabo, for-                   from the Kantongerecht te Groningen): Hendrik van der
merly Sanofi Winthrop SA v Directeur des Services                                         Woude v Stichting Beatrixoord (1)
            Fiscaux du Val-de-Marne (C-181/99) (1)
(VAT — Deduction of tax — Exclusion of the right of                        (Agreements and dominant position — Collective agreement
    deduction — Entertainment costs — Proportionality)                            — Contribution to workers’ sickness insurance)
                           (2000/C 335/12)
                                                                                (2000/C 335/13)
                     (Language of the case: French)
                                                                                (Language of the case: Dutch)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                    in the European Court Reports)
In Joined Cases C-177/99 and C-181/99: references to the                   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
Court under Article 177 of the EC Treaty (now Article 234                                     in the European Court Reports)
EC) from the Tribunal Administratif, Nantes (C-177/99) and
Melun (181/99) (France), for a preliminary ruling in the
proceedings pending before those courts between Ampafrance                 In Case C-222/98: reference to the Court under Article 177 of
SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire                      the EC Treaty (now Article 234 EC) from the Kantongerecht te
(C-177/99) and Sanofi Synthelabo, formerly Sanofi Winthrop                 Groningen (Cartonal Court, Groningen), Netherlands, for a
SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux du Val-de-Marne                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that court
(C-181/99) — on the interpretation on the validity of Council              between Hendrik van der Woude and Stichting Beatrixoord on
Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the French                 the interpretation of Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty (now
Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second                     Articles 81 EC and 82 EC) — the Court (Sixth Chamber),
subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive                       composed of: J.C. Moitinho de Almeida (Rapporteur), President
77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member                  of the Chamber, R. Schintgen and V. Skouris, Judges;
States relating to turnover taxes (OJ 1989 L 239, p. 21) — the             N. Fennelly, Advocate General; H. von Holstein, Deputy
Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: D.A.O Edward, President                Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 21 Sep-
of the Chamber, L. Sevón, P.J.G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm                    tember 2000, in which it has ruled:
and M. Wathelet (Rapporteur), Judges; G. Cosmas, Advocate
General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
has given a judgment on 19 September 2000, in which it has
ruled:                                                                     The provisions of a collective labour agreement which relate to the
                                                                           sickness insurance of employees covered by the agreement and under
                                                                           which employer contributions may be paid only in respect of insurance
Council Decision 89/487/EEC of 28 July 1989 authorising the                taken out with insurer(s) selected in the context of implementing the
French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second              agreement are compatible with Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty
subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC            (now Articles 81 EC and 82 EC).
on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes is invalid.
                                                                           (1) OJ C 258 of 15.8.1998.
(1) OJ C 204 of 17.7.1999; OJ C 188 of 3.7.1999.


title: Case C-332/07: Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Josef Holzinger v Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur

text:
               30.8.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 223/39

         Order of the President of the Court of 30 April 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — Josef Holzinger v Bundesministerium für Bildung, Wissenschaft und Kultur
   (Case C-332/07) (1)

   (2008/C 223/66)

      Language of the case: German

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

      (1)  OJ C 269, 10.11.2007.


title: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 December 2004 in Case C-172/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to transpose — Directive 1999/31/EC — Waste management — Landfill of waste — Inert waste from building and public works)

text:
               19.2.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 45/11

      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

   (Fifth Chamber)
   of 16 December 2004
   in Case C-172/04: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (1)

   (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Failure to transpose - Directive 1999/31/EC - Waste management - Landfill of waste - Inert waste from building and public works)
   (2005/C 45/22)
   Language of the case: French
   In Case C-172/04: Commission of the European Communities (Agents: C.-F Durand and M. Konstantinidis) v French Republic (Agents: G. de Bergues and C. Mercier) – action under Article 226 EC for failure to fulfil obligations, brought on 7 April 2004 – the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of R. Silva de Lapuerta, President of the Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. Kluÿka (Rapporteur), Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 December 2004, in which it:

               1.

               Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste, the French Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.

               2.

               Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106 of 30.04.2004.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Third Chamber) of 9 January 1997 in Case C-255/95 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato): S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas v. Regione Veneto (Aid to promote the extensification of agricultural production - Calculation of reduction in output - Reference period)

text:
22 . 2 . 97            EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                    No C 54/7
2 . The Kingdom of Belgium is ordered to pay the costs.                                JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                                ( Third Chamber )
(') OJ No C 269 , 14 . 9 . 1996 .                                                               of 9 January 1997
                                                                        in Case C-255/95 ( reference for a preliminary ruling from
                                                                        the Consiglio di Stato ): S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas
                                                                                v. Regione Veneto ( 1 )
                                                                        (Aid to promote the extensification of agricultural
                                                                        production — Calculation of reduction in output —
               JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                                             Reference period)
                          ( Sixth Chamber)                                                           ( 97/C 54/ 12 )
                        of 9 January 1997
                                                                                (Language of the case: Italian)
in Case C-143/95 P Commission of the European
Communities v. Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda
                    ( Socurte ) and Others (')
                                                                           (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be
(Appeal — European Social Fund — Time-limit for                                   published in the European Court Reports)
bringing proceedings — Infringement of essential
                   procedural requirements)                             In Case C-255/95 : reference to the Court under Article 177
                             ( 97/C 54/ 11 )                            of the EEC Treaty from the Consiglio di Stato ( Italy ) for a
                                                                        preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
                                                                        court between S. Agri SNC, Agricola Veneta Sas and
              (Language of the case: Portuguese)                        Regione Veneto — on the interpretation of Council
                                                                        Regulation ( EEC ) No 797/85 of 12 March 1985 on
                                                                        improving the efficiency of agricultural structures ( OJ No
                                                                        L 93 , 30 . 3 . 1985 , p. 1 ), as amended by Council
   (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be         Regulation ( EEC ) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987 ( OJ No
          published in the European Court Reports)                      L 167, 26 . 6 . 1987, p. 1 ), and as both amended by
                                                                        Council Regulation ( EEC ) No 1094/88 of 25 April 1988
                                                                        ( OJ No L 106 , 27 . 4 . 1988 , p. 28 ), and of Commission
In Case C-143/95 P : Commission of the European                         Regulation ( EEC ) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988
Communities ( Agents : Francisco de Sousa Fialho and                    laying down detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to
Nicholas Khan ) — appeal against the judgment of the                    promote the extensification of production ( OJ No L 361 ,
Court of First Instance of the European Communities                     29 . 12 . 1988 , p. 13 ) — the Court ( Third Chamber ),
( First Chamber ) of 7 March 1995 in Joined Cases T-432/                composed of: J. C. Moitinho de Almeida, President of the
93 , T-433/93 and T-434/93 Socurte and Others v.                        Chamber, C. Gulmann and J. -P. Puissochet, Judges; M. B.
Commission ( 1995 ) ECR 11-503 , seeking to have that                   Elmer, Advocate-General; H. A. Rühl , Principal
judgment set aside, the other parties to the proceedings                Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on
                                                                        9 March 1997 in which it has ruled :
being: Sociedade de Curtumes a Sul do Tejo Lda ( Socurte ),
Revestimentos de Cortina Lda ( Quavi ), now known as
Estudos e Projectos Lda ( Esprocil ), and Sociedade                     Article 18 (b) (3) (c) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 797/
Transformadora de Carnes Lda ( Stec ), now known as                     85 of 12 March 1985 on improving the efficiency of
Estudos e Projectos Lda (J.A.P. ), represented by Carlos                agricultural structures, as amended by Council Regulation
Botelho Moniz and Antonio Magalhães Cardoso, — the                      (EEC) No 1760/87 of 15 June 1987, and as both amended
Court ( Sixth Chamber), composed of: G. F. Mancini,                     by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1094/88 of 25 April
President of the Chamber, J. L. Murray ( Rapporteur),                   1988, and Article 4 (1 ) and (2) of Commission Regulation
C. N. Kakouris, G. Hirsch and H. Ragnemalm, Judges;                     (EEC) No 4115/88 of 21 December 1988 laying down
C. O. Lenz, Advocate-General ; R. Grass, Registrar, has                 detailed rules for applying the aid scheme to promote the
given a judgment on 9 January 1997, in which it:                        extensification of production must be interpreted as not
                                                                        allowing a Member State, where there has been a drop in
                                                                        output during the intermediate period between the end of
 1 . dismisses the appeal;                                              the reference period and the beginning of the period of the
                                                                        undertaking, to make the grant of aid for 'extensification '
                                                                        in any case conditional on output achieved during the
2 . orders the Commission of the European Communities                   intermediate period being reduced, during the period of
      to pay the cost.                                                  the undertaking, by an amount corresponding to at least
                                                                        20% of output during the reference period.
(') OJ No C 189 , 22 . 7. 1995 .
                                                                         (') OJ No C 248 , 23 . 9 . 1995 .


title: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 13 February 2003 in Case C-85/02: Commission of the European Communities v French Republic (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement Directive 91/439/EC)

text:
5.4.2003                EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                                   C 83/5
                 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT                                       involvement of a court, once the accused has fulfilled certain
                                                                             obligations and, in particular, has paid a certain sum of money
                                                                             determined by the Public Prosecutor.
                       of 11 February 2003
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 212 of 28.7.2001, OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.
In Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01 (Reference for a
preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgerich Köln and
Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Veurne): Hüseyin Gözütok
         (C-187/01) and Klaus Brügge (C-385/01) (1)
(Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement — Ne                                           JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
bis in idem principle — Scope — Decisions by which the
Public Prosecutor definitively discontinues criminal proceed-
                                                                                (Second Chamber)
ings, without the involvement of a court, once the accused
                 has satisfied certain conditions)
                                                                                of 13 February 2003
                          (2003/C 83/08)                                     in Case C-85/02: Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                                ties v French Republic ( 1)
             (Languages of the case: German and Dutch)
                                                                             (Failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure
                                                                                to implement Directive 91/439/EC)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                   in the European Court Reports)                                                        (2003/C 83/09)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
In Joined Cases C-187/01 and C-385/01: References to the                                         in the European Court Reports)
Court under Article 35 EU by the Oberlandesgericht Köln
(Germany) and the Rechtbank van eerste aanleg te Veurne
(Belgium) for a preliminary ruling in the criminal proceedings
before those courts against Hüseyin Gözütok (C-187/01) and                   In Case C-85/02, Commission of the European Communities
Klaus Brügge (C-385/01), on the interpretation of Article 54                 (Agent: M. Wolfcarius) v French Republic (Agents: G. de
of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of                     Bergues and S. Pailler): Application for a declaration that, by
14 June 1985 between the Governments of the States of the                    failing to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative
Benelux Economic Union, the Federal Republic of Germany                      provisions to implement point 12 of Annex II to Council
and the French Republic on the gradual abolition of checks at                Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ
their common borders (OJ 2000 L 239, p. 19), signed on                       1991 L 237, p. 1), and in any event by failing to notify the
19 June 1990 at Schengen (Luxembourg), the Court, composed                   Commission of such provisions, the French Republic has failed
of: G.C. Rodríguez Iglesias, President, J.-P. Puissochet,                    to fulfil its obligations under that directive, the Court (Second
M. Wathelet, R. Schintgen (Rapporteur) and C.W.A. Timmer-                    Chamber), composed of: R. Schintgen (Rapporteur), President
mans (Presidents of Chambers), C. Gulmann, A. La Pergola,                    of the Chamber, V. Skouris and N. Colneric, Judges; F.G. Jacobs,
P. Jann, V. Skouris, F. Macken, N. Colneric, S. von Bahr                     Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, has given a judgment
and J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, Judges; D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer,                    on 13 February 2003, in which it:
Advocate General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the
Registrar, has given a judgment on 11 February 2003, in
which it has ruled:                                                          1.    Declares that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
                                                                                administrative provisions necessary to comply with point 12 of
                                                                                Annex II to Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991
                                                                                on driving licences within the prescribed period, the French
The ne bis in idem principle, laid down in Article 54 of the
                                                                                Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive.
Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement of 14 June 1985
between the Governments of the States of the Benelux Economic
Union, the Federal Republic of Germany and the French Republic on            2.    Orders the French Republic to pay the costs.
the gradual abolition of checks at their common borders, signed on
19 June 1990 at Schengen, also applies to procedures whereby
                                                                             (1 ) OJ C 97 of 20.4.2002.
further prosecution is barred, such as the procedures at issue in the
main actions, by which the Public Prosecutor of a Member State
discontinues criminal proceedings brought in that State, without the


title: Case C-393/11: Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice — Social policy — Directive 1999/70/EC — Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP — Clause 4 — Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector — Stabilisation procedure — Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition — Determination of length of service — Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts — Principle of non-discrimination)

text:
               4.5.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 129/2

         Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 7 March 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Autorità per l’energia elettrica e il gas v Antonella Bertazzi and Others
   (Case C-393/11) (1)

   (Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Social policy - Directive 1999/70/EC - Framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP - Clause 4 - Fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector - Stabilisation procedure - Recruitment of workers employed for a fixed term as career civil servants without a public competition - Determination of length of service - Complete disregard of periods of service completed under fixed-term employment contracts - Principle of non-discrimination)
   2013/C 129/02
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Consiglio di Stato

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Autorità per l'energia elettrica e il gas

      Defendants: Antonella Bertazzi, Annalise Colombo, Maria Valeria Contin, Angela Filippina Marasco, Guido Giussani, Lucia Lizzi, Fortuna Peranio

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Consiglio di Stato — Interpretation of Clause 4 of the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP (OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43) — National legislation under which it is possible, in derogation from the principle that public officials must be recruited by means of an open competition, for the public administrative authorities to enter into permanent work contracts with workers who have been in the employ of those authorities under fixed-term contracts — No account taken of the length of service accrued on the basis of the earlier, fixed-term contract, even where there is no interruption of the employment relationship

      Operative part of the order

   Clause 4 of the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded on 18 March 1999, which is annexed to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work concluded by ETUC, UNICE and CEEP, must be understood as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which completely prohibits periods of service completed by a fixed-term worker for a public authority being taken into account in order to determine the length of service of that worker upon his recruitment on a permanent basis by that same authority as a career civil servant under a stabilisation procedure specific to his employment relationship, unless the functions carried out under fixed-term employment contracts are not the equivalent of those carried out by a career civil servant belonging to the relevant category of that authority or, if not, that that prohibition is justified on ‘objective grounds’ for the purposes of clause 4(1) and/or (4), which it is for the referring court to determine. The mere fact that the fixed-term worker completed those periods of service on the basis of a fixed-term employment contract or relationship does not constitute such an objective ground.

      (1)  OJ C 282, 24.9.2011.


title: Case C-78/00: Action brought on 2 March 2000 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

text:
27.5.2000              EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                      C 149/21
interveners) was brought before the Court of Justice of the              — Breach of the rule of law which makes the incompatibility
European Communities on 2 March 2000 by Acciaierie di                         of ECSC aid dependent on changes in competitive con-
Bolzano SpA, represented by Bruno Nascimbene, with an                         ditions. Absence of reasons regarding validity and compati-
address for service at 36, Rue de Wiltz, Luxembourg.                          bility of the aid;
                                                                         — Breach of the procedural rules governing inter partes
The appellant claims that the Court should:                                   proceedings, to the detriment of the appellant’s interests.
1. Set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of
    the European Communities in Case T-158/96 between                    (1) OJ 1996 L 274, p. 30.
    Acciaierie di Bolzano SpA and Commission of the Euro-
    pean Communities (Italian Republic and Falck SpA, inter-
    veners);
2. By so doing, annul Commission Decision 96/617/ECSC of
    17 July 1996 concerning aid granted by the Autonomous
    Province of Bolzano (Italy) to Acciaierie di BoIzano (1).
                                                                         Action brought on 2 March 2000 by the Commission of
In the alternative                                                         the European Communities against the Italian Republic
3. In the event that the Court of Justice should decide that it                                    (Case C-78/00)
    cannot make a decision as to the status of the measure, set
    aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance and refer
    the case to another sitting of the Court of First Instance,                                   (2000/C 149/36)
    indicating the points of law upheld in the present appeal.
                                                                         An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
4. Make any other decisions it may deem necessary.                       Court of Justice of the European Communities on 2 March
                                                                         2000 by the Commission of the European Communities,
5. Order the Commission to pay the costs, including those                represented by Enrico Traversa, Legal Adviser, acting as Agent,
    incurred at first instance.                                          with an address for service in Luxembourg at the office of
                                                                         Carlos Gómez de la Cruz, Wagner Centre, Kirchberg.
Pleas and main arguments                                                 The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                         a) Declare that, by providing that, in the case of a category of
The contested judgment should be set aside on the following                   taxpayer whose tax situation for 1992 shows a credit
grounds:                                                                      balance, such persons be belatedly issued with Government
                                                                              bonds (titoli di Stato) rather than VAT refunds, the Italian
— Failure to declare that the rights of the defence had                       Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Articles
    been infringed by the administrative decision and the                     17 and 18 of Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of
    inconsistency of the decision at issue;                                   17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the
                                                                              Member States relating to turnover taxes (1);
— Breach of the prohibition on making decisions containing
                                                                         b) Order the Italian Republic to pay the costs of the proceed-
    sanctions and of the principle of proportionality; absence/
    inadequacy/inconsistency of the reasons stated in that                    ings.
    respect;
— Invalid calculation of the interest and inadequate reasons             Pleas in law and main arguments
    stated in that respect;
                                                                         According to the Commission, the Italian State has failed to
— Breach of rules on limitation periods. Absence and inad-               fulfil its obligation to issue VAT refunds to taxpayers whose
    equacy of reasons in that respect;                                   tax balance for the 1992 tax year shows a credit situation in
                                                                         excess of 100 million as a result of intra-Community trans-
                                                                         actions accounting for more than 10 % of their total taxable
— Breach of the prohibition on applying Community rules                  transactions for that year. The Italian State has thereby
    retroactively. Failure to state reasons in that respect;             deprived that category of person of the normal exercise of the
                                                                         right to a refund, a right which constitutes an ‘essential
— Breach of the legal expectations held by Acciaierie di                 element’ of the entire common system of value added tax and
    Bolzano that it would not have to repay the aid and of the           restriction of which constitutes a serious infringement of
    principles of good faith and cooperation;                            Article 17 of the Sixth Directive.
 ---pagebreak--- C 149/22              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                       27.5.2000
By issuing to those taxpayers five-year or ten-year Government         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Amtsgericht
bonds, the Italian State has gone far beyond the facultative           Heidelberg by order of that court of 3 March 2000 in the
power conferred on Member States by Article 18(4) of the                      business register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH
Sixth Directive, which allows the difference between tax
deducted and tax due to be carried forward, but only to the
following tax period. To carry the excess further forward                                        (Case C-86/00)
entails infringement of the rule clearly laid down by Article
18(4), frustrating that provision and ultimately constituting a                                 (2000/C 149/38)
serious contravention of the basic principle underlying the
common system of value added tax, namely, the right to
immediate exercise of the right to a refund.                           Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by order of the Amtsgericht, Heidel-
                                                                       berg (Local Court, Heidelberg), received at the Court Registry
(1) OJ L 145 of 13.6.1977, p. 1.                                       on 7 March 2000, for a preliminary ruling in the business
                                                                       register case of HSB-Wohnbau GmbH on the following
                                                                       questions:
                                                                       A. Does the transfer to Spain of the registered office of a
                                                                           company properly constituted under German law, regis-
                                                                           tered in the German register, and whose sole shareholder
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesge-                        is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its legal person-
richtshof by order of that court of 10 February 2000 in the                ality, fall within the rights set out in Articles 43 and 48 of
case of Italian Leather SpA against WECO Polstermöbel                      the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 52 and 58 EC)?
                          GmbH & Co.
                                                                       B. Do Articles 43 and 48 of the EC Treaty (previously Articles
                         (Case C-80/00)                                    52 and 58 EC) preclude a national rule prohibiting the
                                                                           transfer to Spain of the registered office of a limited
                        (2000/C 149/37)                                    liability company properly constituted under German
                                                                           law, registered on the German register, and whose sole
                                                                           shareholder is a Spanish company, whereby it retains its
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                     legal personality?
European Communities by order of the Bundesgerichtshof
(Federal Court of Justice, Germany) of 10 February 2000,
received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000, for a
preliminary ruling in the case of Italian Leather SpA v
WECO Polstermöbel GmbH & Co. on the following questions
concerning the interpretation of the EC Convention on
Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and
Commercial matters of 27 September 1968 (‘the Convention’)
(OJ 1972 L 299, p. 32):
                                                                       Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Giudice di Pace
                                                                       di Genova by order of that court of 28 February 2000 in
1. Can judgments be irreconcilable within the meaning of
                                                                                the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana SpA
    Article 27(3) of the Convention when the only difference
    between them lies in the specific requirements for the
    adoption of a particular type of autonomous provisional                                      (Case C-87/00)
    measure (within the meaning of Article 24 of the Conven-
    tion)?
                                                                                (2000/C 149/39)
2. May and must the court of the enforcing State which has
    declared a foreign judgment requiring the debtor to desist         Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    from certain activities to be enforceable in accordance with       European Communities by an order of the Giudice di Pace di
    Articles 34(1) and 31(1) of the Convention at the same             Genova (Magistrate’s Court, Genoa) of 28 February 2000,
    time order the measures necessary under the law of the             which was received at the Court Registry on 7 March 2000,
    enforcing State for enforcement of a restraining order?            for a preliminary ruling in the case of Roberto Nicoli v Eridiana
                                                                       SpA, on the following questions:
3. If the answer to Question 2 is in the affirmative, must the
    measures necessary under the law of the enforcing State
    for enforcement of the restraining order be ordered even if        1. Are Regulation (EC) No 1360/98 (1) of 26 June 1998 and
    the judgment to be recognised does not itself include                  Regulation (EC) No 1361/98 (2) 26 June 1998 valid, in
    comparable measures in accordance with the law of the                  view of the fact in that, as a result of belatedly fixing for
    State of judgment, and that law makes no provision at all              the 1998-99 marketing year certain prices applicable to
    for the immediate enforceability of such restraining orders?           the sugar sector, they belatedly determine the intervention
                                                                           prices to be observed on the Italian market, in breach of
                                                                           Article 3(4) and (5) of the basic regulation, Regulation
                                                                           No 1785/81 (3)?


title: Case C-461/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van Beroep voor het bedrĳfsleven by order of that Court of 24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit

text:
C 7/24                 EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          10.1.2004
Action brought on 30 October 2003 by the Commission                       Industry) of 24 October 2003, received at the Court Registry
        of the European Communities against Ireland                       on 4 November 2003, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
                                                                          Gaston Schul Douane-Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van
                         (Case C-459/03)                                  Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit on the following
                                                                          questions:
                          (2004/C 7/39)
                                                                          1.    Is a court or tribunal as referred to in the third paragraph
                                                                                of Article 234 EC also required under that provision to
                                                                                submit to the Court of Justice a question such as that set
An action against Ireland was brought before the Court of                       out below, concerning the validity of provisions of a
Justice of the European Communities on 30 October 2003 by                       regulation where the Court of Justice has ruled that
the Commission of the European Communities, represented                         analogous provisions of another, comparable regulation
by P.J. Kuijper and B. Martenczuk, acting as agents, with an                    are invalid, or may it refrain from applying the first-
address for service in Luxembourg.                                              mentioned provisions in view of the clear analogies
                                                                                between them and the provisions declared invalid?
The Applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          2.    Are Article 4(1) and (2) of Commission Regulation (EC)
—     declare that, by instituting dispute settlement proceedings               No 1423/95 (1) of 23 June 1995 laying down detailed
      against the United Kingdom under the UN Convention                        implementing rules for the import of products in the
      for the Law of the Sea concerning the MOX Plant located                   sugar sector other than molasses invalid inasmuch as
      at Sellafield, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations               they provide that the additional duty referred to therein
      under Article 10 and 292 EC and Article 192 and 193                       is, as a general rule, established on the basis of the
      Euratom;                                                                  representative price referred to in Article 1(2) of Regu-
                                                                                lation (EC) No 1423/95 and that that duty is established
—     order Ireland to pay the costs.                                           on the basis of the cif import price of the shipment
                                                                                concerned only if the importer so requests?
Pleas in law and main arguments                                           (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1423/95 of 23 June 1995 laying
                                                                              down detailed implementing rules for the import of products in
The Commission submits that Ireland has instituted the                        the sugar sector other than molasses (OJ L 141 of 24.06.1995,
                                                                              p. 16).
proceedings against the United Kingdom without taking due
account of the fact that the European Community is a party to
the UN Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). It has
further failed to appreciate that the provisions of UNCLOS
invoked by it, as well as a number of other Community acts
invoked by Ireland, are provisions of Community law. By
submitting the dispute to a Tribunal outside the Community
legal order, Ireland has violated the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Court of Justice enshrined in Articles 292 EC and 193                 Action brought on 4 November 2003 by Kingdom of
Euratom. Furthermore, Ireland has also violated the duty of               Spain against the Commission of the European Communi-
cooperation incumbent on it under Articles 10 EC and 192                                                  ties
Euratom.
                                                                                (Case C-464/03)
                                                                                (2004/C 7/41)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the College van
Beroep voor het bedrijfsleven by order of that Court of
24 October 2003 in the case of Gaston Schul Douane-                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
Expediteur B.V. against the Minister van Landbouw,                        ties was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
                  Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit                              Communities on 4 November 2003 by the Kingdom of Spain,
                                                                          represented by Nuria Díaz Abad, Abogado del Estado, with an
                                                                          address for service in Luxembourg.
                         (Case C-461/03)
                          (2004/C 7/40)                                   The applicant claims that the Court should:
                                                                          —     annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 1438/2003 (1) of
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                          12 August 2003 laying down implementing rules on the
European Communities by order of the College van Beroep                         Community Fleet Policy as defined in Chapter III of
voor het bedrijfsleven (Administrative Court for Trade and                      Council Regulation (EC) No 2371/2002; and