title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance 11 December 2001 in Case T-138/00: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — "DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT" — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

text:
6.4.2002                EN                     Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 84/57
vessels, the Court of First Instance of the European Communi-             2.    Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay one
ties (Third Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President, K. Le-                  half of the applicant’s costs.
naerts and M. Jaeger, Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González,
Administrator, has given a judgment on 6 December 2001, in
which it:                                                                 (1) OJ C 211 of 22.7.2000.
1.     Dismisses the action;
2.     Orders the applicants to pay the costs.
(1) OJ C 333 of 20.11.1999.
                                                                              JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                11 December 2001
                                                                          in Case T-138/00: Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH v Office for
                                                                          Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
                                                                                Designs) (OHIM) (1)
     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                          (Community trade mark — ‘DAS PRINZIP DER BEQUEM-
                       of 4 December 2001                                 LICHKEIT’ — Absolute grounds for refusal —
                                                                               Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
in Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga v Commission
                                                                                (2002/C 84/106)
                of the European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Officials — Transfer of part of remuneration in the
currency of a Member State other than that of the country
in which the institution has its seat — Article 17(2)(a) and
(b) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — Combined
                             application)                                 In Case T-138/00, Erpo Möbelwerk GmbH, established in
                                                                          Ertingen (Germany), represented by S. von Petersdorff-Camp-
                                                                          en, Rechtsanwalt, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                          (2002/C 84/105)                                 v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
                                                                          and Designs) (OHIM), represented by F. López de Rego and
                                                                          G. Schneider, acting as Agents, with an address for service in
                    (Language of the case: Spanish)                       Luxembourg: action brought against the decision of the Third
                                                                          Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the
                                                                          Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 March 2000
                                                                          (Case R 392/1999-3) concerning the registration of ‘DAS
                                                                          PRINZIP DER BEQUEMLICHKEIT’ as a Community trade
In Case T-125/00: Joaquı́n López Madruga, an official of                 mark, the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed
the Commission of the European Communities, residing in                   of: P. Mengozzi, President, V. Tiili and R.M. Moura Ramos,
Brussels, represented by J.R. Iturriagagoitia, lawyer, with an            Judges, Registrar: J. Palacio González, Administrator, has given
address for service in Luxembourg, v Commission of the                    a judgment on 11 December 2001, in which it has ruled:
European Communities (Agents: J. Currall, J. Rivas Andres and
J.J. Guttierrez Gisbert) — application for partial annulment of
the decision implicitly rejecting the applicant’s request of              1.    Annuls the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office
12 October 1999 for the transfer of part of his remuneration                    for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
under Article 17 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations — the                    Designs) of 23 March 2000 (Case R 392/1999-3);
Court of First Instance (Single Judge: A.W.H. Meij); H. Jung,
Registrar, has given a judgment on 4 December 2001, in
                                                                          2.    Orders the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the
which it:
                                                                                applicant.
1.     Annuls the implicit decision of the Commission of 23 March
       2000 in so far as it limits to 19 % of the applicant’s net         (1) OJ C 233 of 12.8.2000.
       monthly remuneration the amount which he may transfer
       pursuant to Article 17(2)(b) of Annex VII to the Staff
       Regulations;


title: Case C-299/14: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna García-Nieto, Joel Peña Cuevas, Jovanlis Peña García, Joel Luis Peña Cruz (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement of persons — Citizenship of the Union — Equal treatment — Directive 2004/38/EC — Article 24(2) — Social Assistance — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 4 and 70 — Special non-contributory cash benefits — Exclusion of nationals of a Member State during the first three months of residence in the host Member State)

text:
               25.4.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 145/7

         Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 25 February 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen — Germany) — Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen v Jovanna García-Nieto, Joel Peña Cuevas, Jovanlis Peña García, Joel Luis Peña Cruz
   (Case C-299/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Freedom of movement of persons - Citizenship of the Union - Equal treatment - Directive 2004/38/EC - Article 24(2) - Social Assistance - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 4 and 70 - Special non-contributory cash benefits - Exclusion of nationals of a Member State during the first three months of residence in the host Member State))
   (2016/C 145/07)
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landessozialgericht Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Vestische Arbeit Jobcenter Kreis Recklinghausen

      Respondents: Jovanna García-Nieto, Joel Peña Cuevas, Jovanlis Peña García, Joel Luis Peña Cruz

      Operative part of the judgment

   Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, and Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1244/2010 of 9 December 2010, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State under which nationals of other Member States who are in a situation such as that referred to in Article 6(1) of that directive are excluded from entitlement to certain ‘special non-contributory cash benefits’ within the meaning of Article 70(2) of Regulation No 883/2004, which also constitute ‘social assistance’ within the meaning of Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38.

      (1)  OJ C 315, 19.9.2014.


title: Case T-639/13: Order of the General Court of 2 March 2015 — Watch TV v Council

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/67

         Order of the General Court of 2 March 2015 — Watch TV v Council
   (Case T-639/13) (1)

   (2015/C 138/86)
   Language of the case: French
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 45, 15.2.2014.


title: Case C-260/15 P: Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union

text:
               3.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 254/13

         Appeal brought on 1 June 2015 by Council of the European Union against the judgment of the General Court (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 19 March 2015 in Case T-413/13: City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union
   (Case C-260/15 P)
   (2015/C 254/17)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Appellant: Council of the European Union (represented by: S. Boelaert, agent, R. Bierwagen, C. Hipp, Rechtsanwälte)

      Other parties to the proceedings: City Cycle Industries, European Commission, Maxcom Ltd

      Form of order sought

   The Council respectfully requests the Court:

               —

               that the judgment of the General Court of 19 March 2015, notified to the Council on 23 March 2015, in Case T-413/13 City Cycle Industries v Council of the European Union be set aside;

               —

               that the application at first instance brought by City Cycle Industries for the annulment of the Contested Regulation (1) be rejected; and

               —

               that City Cycle Industries be ordered to pay the Council’s costs both at first instance and on appeal.

         Alternatively,

               —

               that the case be referred back to the General Court for reconsideration;

               —

               that costs of the proceedings at first instance and on appeal be reserved.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The General Court misinterprets Article 13 (1) of the Basic Regulation (2) when concluding that the Council did not have sufficient evidence to decide that the Applicant was engaged in transhipment. The General Court's interpretation of the conditions that must be met by individual companies in order to be exempted from the extended measures is in contradiction to the structure of Article 13 of the Basic Regulation (first plea).
   The General Court's finding, that on the basis of the documents before the Court, the Council had no evidence from which it could expressly conclude in the Contested Regulation that the Applicant was involved in transshipment operations, lacks proper reasoning. Moreover, and contrary to the judgment under appeal, given that transhipment was correctly demonstrated at country level and that the Applicant's exemption request was not justified, the only conclusion the Council, and subsequently the General Court, could have drawn from the facts was that the Applicant has been involved in transhipment. The General Court, in drawing a different conclusion, distorted the facts (second plea).

      (1)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 extending the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, whether declared as originating in Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia or not

      OJ L 153, p. 1.

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community

      OJ L 343, p. 51.


title: Case T-425/08 R: Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2008 — KODA v Commission (Applications for interim measures — Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of copyright — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — No urgency)

text:
               7.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 32/36

         Order of the President of the Court of First Instance of 5 December 2008 — KODA v Commission
   (Case T-425/08 R)
   (Applications for interim measures - Commission decision ordering the cessation of a concerted practice in connection with the collective management of copyright - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - No urgency)
   (2009/C 32/70)
   Language of the case: Danish
   Parties

      Applicant: KODA (Copenhagen, Denmark) (represented by: K. Dyekjær and J. Borum, lawyers)

      Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F. Castillo de la Torre and N. Rasmussen, Agents)
   Re:
   Application for suspension of operation of Article 4(2) and (3) of Commission Decision C(2008) 3435 final of 16 July 2008 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 EEA (Case COMP/C2/38.698 — CISAC).
   Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-140/12: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey (Freedom of movement for persons — Union Citizenship — Directive 2004/38/EC — Right of residence for more than three months — Article 7(1)(b) — Person no longer having worker status — Person in possession of a retirement pension — Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the ‘social assistance system’ of the host Member State — Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit — Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension — Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 — Articles 3(2) and 70 — Competence of the Member State of residence — Conditions for granting — Legal right to reside on the national territory — Compliance with European Union law)

text:
               23.11.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 344/26

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 19 September 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Pensionsversicherungsanstalt v Peter Brey
   (Case C-140/12) (1)

   (Freedom of movement for persons - Union Citizenship - Directive 2004/38/EC - Right of residence for more than three months - Article 7(1)(b) - Person no longer having worker status - Person in possession of a retirement pension - Having sufficient resources not to become a burden on the ‘social assistance system’ of the host Member State - Application for a special non-contributory cash benefit - Compensatory supplement intended to augment a retirement pension - Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 - Articles 3(2) and 70 - Competence of the Member State of residence - Conditions for granting - Legal right to reside on the national territory - Compliance with European Union law)
   2013/C 344/43
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Oberster Gerichtshof

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Pensionsversicherungsanstalt

      Defendant: Peter Brey

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 7(1)(b) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77), as amended — Right of a citizen of the European Union who has ceased his professional activity to reside for more than three months in the territory of another Member State — Situation in which that citizen receives a retirement pension which is below the minimum subsistence level of the host Member State and has, for that reason, requested that he be granted a compensatory supplement (‘Ausgleichszulage’), which is a special non-contributory cash benefit

      Operative part of the judgment

   EU law — in particular, as it results from Article 7(1)(b), Article 8(4) and Article 24(1) and (2) of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC — must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which, even as regards the period following the first three months of residence, automatically — whatever the circumstances — bars the grant of a benefit, such as the compensatory supplement provided for in Paragraph 292(1) of the Federal Act on General Social Insurance (Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz), as amended, from 1 January 2011, by the 2011 Budget Act (Budgetbegleitgesetzes 2011), to a national of another Member State who is not economically active, on the grounds that, despite having been issued with a certificate of residence, he does not meet the necessary requirements for obtaining the legal right to reside on the territory of the first Member State for a period of longer than three months, since obtaining that right of residence is conditional upon that national having sufficient resources not to apply for the benefit.

      (1)  OJ C 165, 9.6.2012.


title: Case C-240/08: Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

text:
               7.3.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/21

         Order of the President of the Court of 4 December 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
   (Case C-240/08) (1)

   (2009/C 55/37)

      Language of the case: French

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

      (1)  OJ C 183, 19.7.2008.


title: Case F-79/13: Action brought on 12 November 2013 — ZZ v EMCDDA

text:
               1.2.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 31/22

         Action brought on 12 November 2013 — ZZ v EMCDDA
   (Case F-79/13)
   2014/C 31/38
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ZZ (represented by: L. Levi et M. Vandenbussche, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   The annulment of the decision rejecting the applicant’s request in order to state that a moral harassment was held by the superior and of the decision not renew the applicant’s contract and, as a consequence, the conduct of a new impartial investigation plus the compensation of the material and moral prejudices.

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the Director’s decision of 11th September 2012 rejecting the Applicant’s request;

               —

               annul the decision not to renew the Applicant’s contract dated 14th September 2012;

               —

               annul the Chairman of the Management Board’s decision of 13th May 2013 and the Director’s decision of 25th June 2013, rejecting the Applicant’s complaint;

               —

               as a consequence, to conduct a new regular, unbiased and impartial investigation;

               —

               compensate the material prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 430 202 euros;

               —

               compensate the moral prejudice suffered by the Applicant estimated at 120 000 euros;

               —

               order the Defendant to pay for all costs.


title: Case C-424/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesvergabeamt (Austria) by order of 25 October 2001 in the case of CS Communications & Systems Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt

text:
5.1.2002              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                          C 3/17
Question 3                                                            1.    On a proper construction of the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Chapter I(2) in Annex A to Council Directive
Does Article 30(1) and (2) of Directive 93/37/EEC in conjunc-               85/73/EEC (1) as amended and consolidated by Council
tion with the principles of transparency and equal treatment                Directive 96/43/EC (2), is an establishment which is
prohibit a contracting authority from making the acceptance                 situated in the same building as a cutting plant but whose
of an alternative tender, which differs from a tender con-                  operator is a natural or legal person other than the
forming to the tender document in that it proposes a different              operator of the cutting plant also to be regarded as the
technical quality, conditional on a positive assessment based               ‘establishment where the meat is obtained’?
on a criterion in national legislation requiring that ‘the
performance of qualitatively equivalent work is ensured’ if the
tender document refers only to the national provision and             2.    Which criteria are relevant to the fee-levying authority’s
does not specify the comparative parameters to be used to                   decision regarding the extent to which it grants a
assess ‘equivalence’?                                                       reduction of the fees of up to 55 % as provided for in the
                                                                            second subparagraph of Chapter I(2) in Annex A to the
Question 4a                                                                 abovementioned directive?
If the answer to Question 3 is in the affirmative, may a
                                                                            In that regard, may in particular the fact that staff need
contracting authority conclude a tendering procedure like that
                                                                            less time to carry out the controls or inspections also be
described in Question 3 by awarding the contract?
                                                                            taken into consideration where the fees in respect of such
Question 4b                                                                 controls and inspections are determined by the addition
                                                                            of a standard amount pursuant to the first subparagraph
If the answers to Questions 3 and 4a are in the affirmative,                under (a) of Chapter I(2) in Annex A to the abovemen-
must a contracting authority conducting a tendering procedure               tioned directive?
as described in Question 3 reject variants proposed by
tenderers without examining their contents, at any rate if it               Moreover, if Question 1 is answered in the affirmative,
has not defined contract award criteria for assessing the                   when reducing the fee, may account nevertheless be taken
technical differences between the variant and the tender                    of the fact that the establishments situated in one building
document?                                                                   are attributable to operators regarded in law as distinct,
                                                                            and may this in principle lead to a situation where in
Question 5                                                                  such cases less of a reduction is granted than in cases
If the answers to Questions 3 and 4a are in the affirmative and             where the slaughterhouse and cutting plant are not only
the answer to Question 4b is in the negative, must a contracting            situated in the same building but are also operated by the
authority conducting a tendering procedure as described in                  same natural or legal person?
Question 3 accept a variant whose technical differences from
the tender document it is unable to assess on the basis of
contract award criteria owing to the absence of appropriate           (1) OJ L 32 of 5.2.1985, p. 14.
statements in the tender document if this variant is the              (2) OJ L 162 of 1.7.1996, p. 1.
cheapest tender and contract award criteria have not otherwise
been defined?
(1) OJ L 199, p. 54.
                                                                      Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverga-
                                                                      beamt (Austria) by order of 25 October 2001 in the case
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-              of CS Communications & Systems Austria GmbH v
richt Neustadt an der Weinstrasse by order of that court                          Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsanstalt
of 30 July 2001 in the case of Emil Färber GmbH & Co. v
                  Stadt Neustadt/Weinstrasse
                                                                                (Case C-424/01)
                        (Case C-423/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/26)
                         (2002/C 3/25)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgericht               European Communities by order of 25 October 2001 by
(Administrative Court) Neustadt an der Weinstrasse of 30 July         the Bundesvergabeamt (Austrian Federal Procurement Office),
2001, which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October          which was received at the Court Registry on 26 October 2001,
2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Emil Färber             for a preliminary ruling in the case of CS Communications &
GmbH & Co. v Stadt Neustadt/Weinstrasse on the following              Systems Austria GmbH v Allgemeine Unfallversicherungsan-
questions:                                                            stalt on the following questions:
 ---pagebreak--- C 3/18                EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                         5.1.2002
Question 1                                                             Must Directive 87/102/EEC (1) and Directive 90180/EEC (2) be
                                                                       interpreted as having as their sole purpose consumer protec-
When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for          tion or, as aiming, beyond that, at the organization and
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council               regulation of the single market in credit?
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 (1) on the coordi-
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the application of review procedures to the award          Must the obligation to interpret those directives in conformity
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by             with their purpose, and at least in way protective of consumers,
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992(2), is the ‘body respon-           prompt the national court to prefer an interpretation of its law
sible for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8)        that would allow it to raise, of its own motion, issues of
of Directive 89/665/EEC required to take into account the              irregularity affecting consumer credit agreements, such as a
prospects of success of an application for an unlawful decision        failure to indicate in writing the percentage rate of charge, in
of a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant to                 actions for payment of a debt brought before it by credit
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?                                     institutions?
Question 2
                                                                       (1) Council Directive 87/102/EEC of 22 December 1986 for the
                                                                           approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative pro-
When balancing interests prior to deciding an application for              visions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ
interim measures, as required by Article 2(4) of Council                   L 42 of 12.2.1987, p. 48).
Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989 on the coordi-                (2) Council Directive 90/88/EEC of 22 February 1990 amending
nation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions              Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regu-
relating to the application of review procedures to the award              lations and administrative provisions of the Member States
of public supply and public works contracts, as amended by                 concerning consumer credit (OJ L 61, 10.3.1990, p. 14).
Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June 1992, is the ‘body responsible
for review procedures’ within the meaning of Article 2(8) of
Directive 89/665/EEC entitled to take into account the pros-
pects of success of an application for an unlawful decision of
a contracting authority to be set aside pursuant to
Article 2(1)(b) of that Directive?
(1) OJ 1989 L 395, p. 33.                                              Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundessozial-
(2) OJ 1992 L 209, p. 1.                                               gericht by order of that court of 2 August 2001 in the
                                                                       case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti v
                                                                                Bundesanstalt für Arbeit
                                                                                (Case C-427/01)
                                                                                (2002/C 3/28)
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal d’In-
stance, Vienne, by judgment of that court of 19 October
2001 in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v                        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                         Christian Giner                               European Communities by order of the Bundessozialgericht
                                                                       (Federal Social Court) of 2 August 2001, received at the Court
                                                                       Registry on 30 October 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the
                         (Case C-426/01)
                                                                       case of Dülger Trans Uluslararasi Tazimacilik Ltd. Sti. v
                                                                       Bundesanstalt für Arbeit (Federal Labour Office) on the follow-
                          (2002/C 3/27)                                ing questions:
                                                                       1.     Is Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol of 23 Novem-
                                                                              ber 1970 to the Agreement establishing an Association
                                                                              between the European Economic Community and Turkey
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the                        to be interpreted as meaning that there is also a restriction
European Communities by judgment of the Tribunal d’Instance                   on the freedom to provide services where a Member State
(District Court), Vienne, of 19 October 2001, received at the                 of the Community abolishes an existing work permit
Court Registry on 29 October 2001 for a preliminary ruling                    exemption for Turkish drivers engaged in international
in the case of SA Société ACCEA Finances v Christian Giner                    haulage who are employed by a (Turkish) employer with
on the following questions:                                                   its seat in Turkey?


title: Case C-439/13 P: Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo (Appeal — Public service contracts — Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP — Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo — Action brought against the decision awarding the contract — Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU — Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU — Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) — Jurisdiction of the Court — Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU — Meaning of ‘bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’ — Measures attributable to the European Commission — Excusable error)

text:
               18.1.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 16/2

         Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 November 2015 — Elitaliana SpA v Eulex Kosovo
   (Case C-439/13 P) (1)

   ((Appeal - Public service contracts - Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP - Call for tenders for helicopter support for the Eulex Mission in Kosovo - Action brought against the decision awarding the contract - Article 24(1), second subparagraph, TEU - Article 275, first subparagraph, TFEU - Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) - Jurisdiction of the Court - Article 263, first paragraph, TFEU - Meaning of ‘bodies, offices or agencies of the Union’ - Measures attributable to the European Commission - Excusable error))
   (2016/C 016/02)
   Language of the case: Italian

      Parties

      Appellant: Elitaliana SpA (represented by: R. Colagrande, avvocato)

      Other party to the proceedings: Eulex Kosovo (represented by: G. Brosadola Pontotti, Solicitor)

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the appeal;

               2.

               Orders Elitaliana SpA to pay the costs.

      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.


title: Case C-250/11: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 20 May 2011 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

text:
               30.7.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 226/14

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės (Lithuania) lodged on 20 May 2011 — Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB v Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos
   (Case C-250/11)
   2011/C 226/27
   Language of the case: Lithuanian

      Referring court

   Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Lietuvos geležinkeliai AB

      Defendants: Vilniaus teritorinė muitinė, Muitinės departamentas prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

      Questions referred

               1.

               Should the exemption from import duties laid down in Article 112(1)(a) of Regulation No 918/83 (1) and Article 107(1)(a) of Regulation No 1186/2009 (2) be understood as applying to motor vehicles [motorinės transporto priemonės] that are locomotives?

               2.

               Should the exemption from value added tax laid down in Article 82(1)(a) of Directive 83/181/EEC (3) and Article 84(1)(a) of Directive 2009/132/EC (4) be understood as applying to motor vehicles [motorinės transporto priemonės] that are locomotives?

               3.

               If the answer to the second question is in the affirmative, do legal rules such as those laid down in Article 82(1)(a) of Directive 83/181/EEC and Article 84(1)(a) of Directive 2009/132/EC have to be interpreted as prohibiting a Member State from restricting the cases of exemption from import VAT for fuel by providing that such an exemption is applicable exclusively to fuel that is admitted into the territory of the European Union in the standard tanks of automotive vehicles and is necessary for the operation of those vehicles?

      (1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 1).

      (2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (OJ 2009 L 324, p. 23).

      (3)  Council Directive 83/181/EEC of 28 March 1983 determining the scope of Article 14(1)(d) of Directive 77/388/EEC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 1983 L 105, p. 38).

      (4)  Council Directive 2009/132/EC of 19 October 2009 determining the scope of Article 143(b) and (c) of Directive 2006/112/EC as regards exemption from value added tax on the final importation of certain goods (OJ 2009 L 292, p. 5).


title: Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European CommunitiesOJ C 247, 12.10.2002

text:
C 261/22        EN                  Official Journal of the European Communities                         26.10.2002
                                                           III
                                                         (Notices)
                                                   (2002/C 261/40)
            Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Communities
         OJ C 247, 12.10.2002
         Past publications
         OJ C 233, 28.9.2002
         OJ C 219, 14.9.2002
         OJ C 202, 24.8.2002
         OJ C 191, 10.8.2002
         OJ C 180, 27.7.2002
         OJ C 169, 13.7.2002
                                              These texts are available on:
                                         EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex
                                           CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex


title: Case T-690/14: Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community figurative mark Vieta — Genuine use of the mark — Nature of use — Article 15(1) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark — Proof of use for the registered goods)

text:
               1.2.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 38/51

         Judgment of the General Court of 10 December 2015 — Sony Computer Entertainment Europe v OHIM — Marpefa (Vieta)
   (Case T-690/14) (1)

   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community figurative mark Vieta - Genuine use of the mark - Nature of use - Article 15(1) and Article 51(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark - Proof of use for the registered goods))
   (2016/C 038/66)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Marpefa, SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: I. Barroso Sánchez-Lafuente, lawyer)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 2 July 2014 (Case R 2100/2013-2), relating to revocation proceedings between Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited and Marpefa, SL.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 2 July 2014 (Case R 2100/2013-2) in so far as it dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Cancellation Division to reject the application for the revocation of the Community figurative mark Vieta for ‘apparatus for the reproduction of sound and images’;

               2.

               Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

               3.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 431, 1.12.2014.


title: Case C-48/15: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2015 — The Belgian State — SPF Finances v ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/32

         Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles (Belgium) lodged on 6 February 2015 — The Belgian State — SPF Finances v ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA
   (Case C-48/15)
   (2015/C 138/44)
   Language of the case: French

      Referring court

   Cour d’appel de Bruxelles

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: The Belgian State — SPF Finances

      Defendant: ING International SA, successor to the rights and obligations of ING Dynamic SA

      Questions referred

               1)

               Must Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (1), and more specifically Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11 thereof read together, be interpreted as precluding provisions of national law, such as Articles 161 and 162 of the Belgian Inheritance Tax Code, amended by the Programme-Law of 22 December 2003, concerning the tax on undertakings for collective investment, in so far as that tax is imposed annually on undertakings for collective investment established as companies with share capital in another Member State and marketing their shares in Belgium, on the total amount of their shares subscribed in Belgium reduced by the amount of repurchases or refunds of those subscriptions, with the consequence that the sums collected in Belgium by such undertakings for collective investment are subject to that tax while they remain at the disposal of those undertakings?

               2)

               Must Articles 49 to 55 and 56 to 66 of the EC Treaty, read, if appropriate, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 293, second indent, of the EC Treaty be interpreted as precluding a Member State from modifying unilaterally the criterion on the basis of which a tax is imposed, as provided for by Article 161 et seq. of the Belgian Inheritance Tax Code, in order to replace a personal criterion for taxation, based on the domicile of the taxpayer and laid down in international tax law, with an alleged criterion of actual connection, which is not laid down in international tax law, account being taken of the fact that in order to establish its fiscal sovereignty the Member State adopts a specific penalty, such as that laid down by Article 162(3) of the Belgian Inheritance Tax Code, as regards foreign operators only?

               3)

               Must Articles 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty, read, if appropriate, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 293, second indent, of the EC Treaty, be interpreted as precluding an imposition of tax, such as that described above, which, inasmuch as it takes no account of the tax already imposed in the Member State of origin of the undertakings for collective investment established in another Member State, represents an additional pecuniary burden likely to impede the marketing of their shares in Belgium?

               4)

               Must Council Directive 85/611/EEC of 20 December 1985 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (2) (OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3), read, if appropriate, in conjunction with Articles 10 and 293, second indent, of the EC Treaty, be interpreted as precluding an imposition of tax, as described above, inasmuch as it prejudices the principal aim of the directive of facilitating the marketing of shares of undertakings for collective investment in the European Union?

               5)

               Must Articles 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as precluding administrative charges incurred by the levying of taxation such as that described above on undertakings for collective investment that market their shares in Belgium?

               6)

               Must Articles 49 and 56 of the EC Treaty be interpreted as precluding a provision of national law, such as Article 162(2) of the Belgian Inheritance Tax Code, inasmuch as that provision imposes a specific penalty on undertakings for collective investment established in another Member State that market their shares in Belgium, namely the prohibition, ordered by a court, of making future investments of its shares in Belgium in the event of failure to submit their declarations by 31 March each year or if they fail to pay the tax described above?

      (1)  OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25.

      (2)  OJ 1985 L 375, p. 3.


title: Case T-547/12: Order of the General Court of 5 December 2014  — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA

text:
               16.2.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 56/30

         Order of the General Court of 5 December 2014 — Teva Pharma and Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe v EMA
   (Case T-547/12) (1)

   (2015/C 056/42)
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.


title: Case C-203/01: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda

text:
11.8.2001              EN                   Official Journal of the European Communities                                        C 227/9
      tories of sugar sector products with EC/OCT cumulation           Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Supremo
      of origin for the period 1 March to 30 June 2001;                Tribunal Administrativo, 2a Secçao, by judgment of that
                                                                       court of 4 April 2001 in the case of Fazenda Pública
2.    Order the Commission to pay the costs.                                             against Antero & CC.a, Lda
Pleas in law and main arguments
The Netherlands refers to the application made in Case                                         (Case C-203/01)
C-452/00 (2).
(1) OJ L 58 of 28.02.2001, p. 13.
(2) OJ C 45 of 10.02.2001, p. 12.                                                              (2001/C 227/14)
                                                                       Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
                                                                       European Communities by judgment of the Supremo Tribunal
                                                                       Administrativo, 2a Secçao (Second Chamber of the Supreme
                                                                       Administrative Court), of 4 April 2001, which was received at
                                                                       the Court Registry on 17 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunale
                                                                       in the case of Fazenda Pública against Antero & CC.a, Lda on
Amministrativo Regionale, Lazio, by order of 24 January
                                                                       the following questions:
2001 in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF)
    v Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato
                         (Case C-198/01)                               1.   What is the meaning and scope of the expression
                                                                            ‘prise en compte’ used in the second subparagraph of
                                                                            Article 2(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 (1)
                         (2001/C 227/13)                                    of 24 July 1979?
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of 24 January 2001 by the
First Chamber of the Tribunale Amministrativo Regionale                2.   Was the official act by which the amount of the import
(Regional Administrative Court), Lazio, which was received at               duties or export duties to be collected by the competent
the Court Registry on 11 March 2001, for a preliminary ruling               authorities is duly determined referred to in Article 1(2)(c)
in the case of Consorzio Industrie Fiammiferi (CIF) v Autorità              of that regulation ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in the
Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato on the following                    accounts) or was it ‘liquidaçao’ (assessment), calculation
questions:                                                                  or computation of those duties by the customs auth-
                                                                            orities?
(1) Where an agreement between undertakings adversely
      affects Community trade, and where that agreement is
      required or facilitated by national legislation which
      legitimises or reinforces those effects, specifically with       3.   On 19 April 1988, was ‘registo de liquidaçao’ (entry in
      regard to the determination of prices or market-sharing               the accounts) a procedural requirement essential for
      arrangements, does Article 81 [EC] require or permit the              the validity of the assessment or was it a procedural
      official anti-trust Authority to disapply that measure                requirement rendering it enforceable or payable?
      and to penalise the anti-competitive conduct of the
      undertakings or, in any event, to prohibit it for the future,
      and if so, with what legal consequences?                         4.   On 19 April 1988, did assessment (calculation or compu-
                                                                            tation) of import duties duly notified to the debtor for
(2) For the purposes of applying Article 81(1) [EC], is
                                                                            post-clearance recovery, even where there is no entry in
      it possible to regard national legislation under which
                                                                            the accounts, render the customs debt due and payable?
      competence to fix the selling prices of a product is
      delegated to a ministry and power to allocate production
      between undertakings is entrusted to a consortium to
      which the relevant producers are obliged to belong, as           5.   Did the appeal against the order for payment of the
      leaving room for competition which is open to hindrance,              customs authorities which had refused to grant the
      restriction or distortion by the autonomous conduct of                application for remission of post-clearance recovery of
      those undertakings?                                                   duty and which was before the Portuguese courts from
                                                                            1988 until 15 November 1995 have the effect of
                                                                            suspending the period of three years for post-clearance
                                                                            recovery?
 ---pagebreak--- C 227/10               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                      11.8.2001
6.    Prior to the entry into force of Regulation (EC)                     Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal
      No 2700/2000 (2) of the European Parliament and of                   Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo Conten-
      the Council of 16 November 2000, which amended                       cioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda, by
      Article 221(3) of the Community Customs Code, was                    order of 3 April 2001 in the case of Isabel Parras Medina
      there any provision of Community law which provided                  and Adelina Paras Medina v Conséjeria de Agricultura de
      for the suspension of the period of three years for post-                  la Junta, de Comunidades de Castilla-La-Mancha
      clearance recovery as soon as an appeal is lodged?
                                                                                (Case C-208/01)
(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1697/79 of 24 July 1979 on the
    post-clearance recovery of import duties or export duties which                                 (2001/C 227/16)
    have not been required of the person liable for payment on goods
    entered for a customs procedure involving the obligation to pay        Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
    such duties (OJ 1979 L 197, p. 1).                                     European Communities by order of 3 April 2001 by the
(2) Regulation (EC) No 2700/2000 of the European Parliament                Tribunal Superior de Justicia, Castilla-La-Mancha, Sala de lo
    and of the Council of 16 November 2000 amending Council
                                                                           Contencioso-Administrativo del Tribunal, Sección Segunda
    Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Cus-
    toms Code (OJ 2000 L 311, p. 17).                                      (Second section of the Administrative-law Chamber of the
                                                                           High Court of Justice, Castilla-La-Mancha) which was received
                                                                           at the Court Registry on 18 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
                                                                           in the case of Isabel Parras Medina and Adelina Paras Medina v
                                                                           Conséjeria de Agricultura de la Junta de Comunidades de
                                                                           Castilla-La-Mancha on the following questions:
                                                                           1.    Must the scope of the concept of force majeure used in
                                                                                Article 12 of Regulation No 1294/96 of 4 July 1996 be
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Verwaltungsge-                         altered so as to equate to that of unforeseen and
richtshof by order of that court of 25 April 2001 in the                         compelling circumstances, as described in this decision,
case of Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for                        of such a kind that negligence as regards compliance with
                 Education, Science and Culture                                  the time-limit in question would not be regarded as such?
                                                                           2.    Are the consequences provided for in the abovemen-
                         (Case C-204/01)                                         tioned Article 12 in the nature of a sanction or a penalty
                                                                                and, if that is the a case, does that fact contribute to the
                                                                                need to alter the scope of the said concept of force majeure?
                         (2001/C 227/15)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Verwaltungsgerichts-
hof of 25 April 2001, received at the Court Registry on
16 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling in the case of
Dr Tilmann Klett against the Federal Minister for Education,
Science and Culture on the following question:                             Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundespa-
                                                                           tentgericht by order of that court of 10 April 2001 in the
                                                                                case of Henkel KGaA
Are Article 19b of Council Directive 78/686/EEC (1) of 25 July
1978 concerning the mutual recognition of diplomas, certifi-
cates and other evidence of the formal qualifications of                                            (Case C-218/01)
practitioners of dentistry, including measures to facilitate the
effective exercise of the right of establishment and freedom to                                     (2001/C 227/17)
provide services, as amended by the Act of Accession, Official
Journal C 241 of 29 August 1994; p. 218, Article 12 EC and                 Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
Article 39 EC, and Article 1; read in conjunction with Article 3           European Communities by order of the Bundespatentgericht
and Article 9, of Council Directive 93/16/EEC (2) to facilitate            (Federal Patents Court) of 10 April 2001 which was received
the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of                 at the Court Registry on 29 May 2001, for a preliminary ruling
their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal                  in the case of Henkel KGaA on the following questions on the
qualifications, to be interpreted as precluding legislation under          interpretation of Article 3(1)(b), (c) and (e) of First Council
which admission to a training course in dentistry covered by               Directive 89/104/EEC(1) of 21 December 1988 to approximate
Article 19b of Directive 78/686/EEC requires a degree in                   the laws of the Member States relating to trade marks (OJ
medicine obtained at an Austrian university?                               1989 L 40, p. 1):
                                                                           1.    In the case of three-dimensional trade marks which
(1) OJ 1978 L 233, p. 1.                                                         consist of the packaging of goods which are normally
(2) OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1.                                                         traded in packaged form (such as liquids, for example) is
                                                                                the packaging of the goods to be equated with the shape
                                                                                of the goods for the purpose of trade mark law in such a
                                                                                way that


title: Case T-183/14 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission (Interim measures — State aid — National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source — Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Urgency — Fumus boni juris)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/17

         Order of the President of the General Court of 10 June 2014 — Schmiedag v Commission
   (Case T-183/14 R)
   ((Interim measures - State aid - National promotion of electricity production from a renewable source - Commission decision to open formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Urgency - Fumus boni juris))
   2014/C 329/23
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Applicant: Schmiedag GmbH (Hagen, Germany) (represented by: H. Höfler, C. Kahle and V. Winkler, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, Agents)

      Re:

   Application for suspension of the legal effects of the decision by which the Commission opened a formal investigation procedure in respect of State aid concerning the German law on renewable energy.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The judgment of 7 April 2014 in Case T-179/14 R Schmiedag v Commission is set aside.

               3.

               Costs are reserved.


title: Case C-492/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2010 — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

text:
               15.1.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 13/18

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz (Austria) lodged on 14 October 2010 — Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG v Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr
   (Case C-492/10)
   ()
   2011/C 13/31
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Unabhängiger Finanzsenat, Außenstelle Linz

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Immobilien Linz GmbH & Co KG

      Respondent: Finanzamt Freistadt Rohrbach Urfahr

      Question referred

   Does the absorption of a company’s losses by its sole member, a public body whose representative was instructed by the competent body to grant an annual member’s contribution to cover losses up to the amount provisionally earmarked in the budget estimate or business plan adopted by the company prior to the beginning of the financial year, increase the assets of that company within the meaning of Article 4(2)(b) of Directive 69/335/EEC (1) (which is identical to Article 3(h) of Directive 2008/7/EC)?

      (1)  Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital (OJ 1969 L 249, p. 25)


title: Case C-133/15: Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Union citizenship — Article 20 TFEU — Access to social assistance and child benefit conditional on right of residence in a Member State — Third-country national responsible for the primary day-to-day care of her minor child, a national of that Member State — Obligation on the third-country national to establish that the other parent, a national of that Member State, is not capable of caring for the child — Refusal of residence possibly obliging the child to leave the territory of the Member State, or the territory of the European Union)

text:
               24.7.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 239/4

         Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 May 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Centrale Raad van Beroep — Netherlands) — H.C. Chavez-Vilchez and Others v Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank and Others
   (Case C-133/15) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Union citizenship - Article 20 TFEU - Access to social assistance and child benefit conditional on right of residence in a Member State - Third-country national responsible for the primary day-to-day care of her minor child, a national of that Member State - Obligation on the third-country national to establish that the other parent, a national of that Member State, is not capable of caring for the child - Refusal of residence possibly obliging the child to leave the territory of the Member State, or the territory of the European Union))
   (2017/C 239/05)
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Centrale Raad van Beroep

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: H.C. Chavez-Vilchez, P. Pinas, U. Nikolic, X.V. Garcia Perez, J. Uwituze, I.O. Enowassam, A.E. Guerrero Chavez, Y.R. L. Wip

      Defendants: Raad van bestuur van de Sociale verzekeringsbank, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Arnhem, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente ’s-Gravenhage, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente ’s-Hertogenbosch, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Amsterdam, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rijswijk, College van burgemeester en wethouders van de gemeente Rotterdam

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as meaning that for the purposes of assessing whether a child who is a citizen of the European Union would be compelled to leave the territory of the European Union as a whole and thereby deprived of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights conferred on him by that article if the child’s third-country national parent were refused a right of residence in the Member State concerned, the fact that the other parent, who is a Union citizen, is actually able and willing to assume sole responsibility for the primary day-to-day care of the child is a relevant factor, but it is not in itself a sufficient ground for a conclusion that there is not, between the third-country national parent and the child, such a relationship of dependency that the child would indeed be so compelled were there to be such a refusal of a right of residence. Such an assessment must take into account, in the best interests of the child concerned, all the specific circumstances, including the age of the child, the child’s physical and emotional development, the extent of his emotional ties both to the Union citizen parent and to the third-country national parent, and the risks which separation from the latter might entail for the child’s equilibrium.

               2.

               Article 20 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding a Member State from providing that the right of residence in its territory of a third-country national, who is a parent of a minor child that is a national of that Member State and who is responsible for the primary day-to-day care of that child, is subject to the requirement that the third-country national must provide evidence to prove that a refusal of a right of residence to the third-country national parent would deprive the child of the genuine enjoyment of the substance of the rights pertaining to the child’s status as a Union citizen, by obliging the child to leave the territory of the European Union, as a whole. It is however for the competent authorities of the Member State concerned to undertake, on the basis of the evidence provided by the third-country national, the necessary enquiries in order to be able to assess, in the light of all the specific circumstances, whether a refusal would have such consequences.

      (1)  OJ C 178, 1.6.2015.


title: Case C-340/05: Order of the Court of 28 September 2006 — (reference for a preliminary ruling of Oberlandsgericht München — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Directive 91/439/EEC — Mutual recognition of driving licences — Withdrawal of licence in one Member State — Licence issued in another Member State — Refusal to recognise the right to drive in the first Member State — Requirement of compliance with national conditions for obtaining a new licence following a withdrawal)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/23

         Order of the Court of 28 September 2006 — (reference for a preliminary ruling of Oberlandsgericht München — Germany) — Criminal proceedings against Stefan Kremer
   (Case C-340/05) (1)

   (First subparagraph of Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Directive 91/439/EEC - Mutual recognition of driving licences - Withdrawal of licence in one Member State - Licence issued in another Member State - Refusal to recognise the right to drive in the first Member State - Requirement of compliance with national conditions for obtaining a new licence following a withdrawal)
   (2006/C 326/46)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Oberlandsgericht München (Germany)
   Criminal proceedings against
   Stefan Kremer
   Action
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Oberlandsgericht München — Interpretation of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (OJ 1991 L 237, p. 1) — Refusal to recognise the validity of a driving licence issued by another Member State, raised against the holder having had his national licence withdrawn without a prohibition period, due to repeated offences under the road traffic act — Obligation to provide beforehand a medical-psychological opinion attesting to aptitude to drive
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court hereby orders:
   The combined provisions of Articles 1(2) and 8(2) and (4) of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences, as amended by Council Directive 97/26/EC of 2 June 1997, preclude a Member State from refusing to recognise, on its territory, the right to drive resulting from a driving licence issued in another Member State and, accordingly, the validity of that licence so long as the holder of that licence, whose previous licence in the territory of the first Member State was withdrawn without a measure prohibiting the holder from obtaining a new licence, has not complied with the conditions required under the laws of that first Member State for the issuance of a new licence following that withdrawal, including an examination of aptitude to drive attesting that the grounds for that withdrawal are no longer present.

      (1)  OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.


title: JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE of 16 July 1998 in Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotera v. Commission of the European Communities (Freelance conference interpreters - Lawfulness of levying Community tax on their remuneration)

text:
26.9.98               EN                Official Journal of the European Communities                                  C 299/33
Goupil, residing at Chevreuse (France), represented by                 1 January 1989, together with interest at the statutory
Jean-Pierre Spitzer, of the Paris Bar, with an address for             rate applicable in Belgium, to run from the date of the
service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Aloyse May,                   first application for payment submitted by each of the
31 Grand-Rue v. the Commission of the European                         applicants respectively until payment is actually made;
Communities (Agents: Pieter Van Nuffel and Ami Barav)
Ð application pursuant to Articles 178 and 215, second             2. dismisses the remainder of the applicants' claims;
paragraph, of the EC Treaty, for compensation for damage
which the applicants purportedly suffered as a result of an        3. orders the Commission to pay the costs;
investigation conducted by the Commission, pursuant to
the 18th Commission Directive 95/34/EC of 10 July 1995             4. orders the Federal Republic of Germany to pay its
adapting to technical progress Annexes II, III, VI and VII             own costs.
to Council Directive 76/768/EEC on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to cosmetic pro-            (1) OJ C 74, 8.3.1997 and OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
ducts (2), into the use of psoralens in sun Ð creams and
bronzing Ð products Ð the Court of First Instance (Third
Chamber), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt and
A. Potocki, Judges; B. Pastor, Principal Administrator, for
the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, in which
it:
                                                                     JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
1. dismisses the application;
                                                                                of 16 July 1998
2. orders the applicants to pay the costs.                               in Case T-219/96: Y. v. European Parliament (1)
                                                                   (Officials Ð Article 88 of the Staff Regulations Ð
(1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
(2) OJ L 167, 18.7.1995, p. 19.                                    Suspension Ð Deductions from remuneration Ð Pensions
                                                                                rights Ð Damages)
                                                                                (98/C 299/56)
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                          In Case T-219/96: Y., a former official of the European
                        of 16 July 1998                            Parliament, residing in Brussels, represented during the
                                                                   written procedure by GeÂrard Collin and, at the hearing,
in Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  by Claude Andries and Jacques Lombart, all of the
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotera v. Commission of the                Brussels Bar, with an address for service in Luxembourg at
                  European Communities (1)                         Fiduciaire Myson SAÁRL, 30 rue de Cessange, against the
(Freelance conference interpreters Ð Lawfulness of levying         European Parliament (Agents: Hans Krück and Hugo
           Community tax on their remuneration)                    Vandenberghe) Ð application for, first, repayment of
                                                                   deductions from the salary of the applicant made between
                         (98/C 299/55)                             1 November 1993 and 19 January 1996 and, second, an
                                                                   order requiring the European Parliament to pay damages
               (Language of the case: English)                     amounting to BEF 3 million by way of provisional
                                                                   compensation for the harm arising from the infringement
In Joined Cases T-202/96 and T-204/96: Andrea von                  of the official's pension rights Ð the Court of First
Löwis and Marta Alvarez-Cotero, conference interpreters,           Instance (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. Azizi, President,
of Geneva (Switzerland), represented by Gerard van der             R. García-Valdecasas and M. Jaeger, Judges; H. Jung,
Wal, advocate with the right of audience before the Hoge           Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 July 1998, the operative
Raad der Nederlanden and member of the Brussels Bar,               part of which is as follows:
having an address for service in Luxembourg at the
Chambers of Aloyse May, 31, Grand-Rue; the second                  1. Parliament shall repay to the applicant the deductions
applicant being supported by the Federal Republic of                   made from his remuneration between 1 November
Germany (Agent: Ernst Röder) v. the Commission of the                  1993 and 19 January 1996. That amount shall be paid
European Communities (Agent: Peter Oliver) Ð                           in addition to default interest at 8 % with effect from
application for the repayment of the Community tax                     5 March 1996;
deducted from the applicants' remuneration since
1 January 1989 Ð the Court (Third Chamber, extended                2. the remainder of the application is dismissed;
composition), composed of: V. Tiili, President, C. P. BrieÈt,
K. Lenaerts, A. Potocki and J. D. Cooke, Judges; A. Mair,          3. Parliament shall bear its own costs and one half of
Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on              those of the applicant. The applicant shall bear one
16 July 1998 in which it:                                              half of his own costs.
1. orders the Commission to repay to the applicants the            (1) OJ C 54, 22.2.1997.
    sums referred to as Community tax which it has
    unlawfully levied on their remuneration paid since


title: Case T-902/16: Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission

text:
               20.2.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 53/40

         Action brought on 21 December 2016 — HeidelbergCement v Commission
   (Case T-902/16)
   (2017/C 053/49)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: HeidelbergCement AG (Heidelberg, Germany) (represented by: U. Denzel, C. von Köckritz, P. Pichler and H. Weiß, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Court should:

               —

               annul the decision of the European Commission No (2016)6591 final of 10 October 2016 to initiate proceedings pursuant to article 6(1)(c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) in Case M. 7878 — HeidelbergerCement/Schwenk/Cemex Hungary/Cemex Croatia concerning the envisaged acquisition by Duna-Dráva Cement Kft. of 100 % of the shares in Cemex Hratska dd. and Cemex Hungária Építőanyagok Kft.; and

               —

               in any event, order the Commission to pay the applicant’s costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   In support of the action, the applicant relies on one plea in law.
   According to the applicant, the European Commission committed a manifest error of assessment by considering the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG — rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., a full-function joint venture in which the applicant and Schwenk Zement KG each hold respectively a controlling interest of 50 %, as ‘undertakings concerned’ and thus concluded that the transaction has a ‘Union dimension’ within the meaning of article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. According to the applicant, in reality, the European Commission lacks the competence for adopting the contested decision and reviewing the transaction on the basis of the Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the contested decision therefore violates article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) 139/2004 and the underlying principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.
   First, the applicant puts forward that the European Commission erred in law and committed a manifest error of assessment in relying on paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice (2) in order to qualify the applicant and SchwenkZement KG, rather than Duna-Dráva Cement Kft., as the ‘undertakings concerned’;
   Second, the applicant puts forward that paragraph 147 of the Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice would be unlawful if it could indeed be applied to the case at hand due to a violation of article 1 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 and the underlying primary law principles of legal certainty and subsidiarity.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 of 20 January 2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ, L 24, p. 1.

      (2)  Commission Consolidated Jurisdictional Notice under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 on the control of concentrations between undertakings, OJ 2008, C 95, p. 1.


title: Case T-588/13: Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014  — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)

text:
               22.9.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 329/26

         Order of the General Court of 8 July 2014 — Deutsche Rockwool Mineralwoll v OHIM — A. Weber (JETROC)
   (Case T-588/13) (1)

   2014/C 329/43
   Language of the case: English
   The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 24, 25.1.2014.


title: Case F-43/09: Action brought on 15 April 2009 — van Heuckelom v Europol

text:
               1.8.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 180/63

         Action brought on 15 April 2009 — van Heuckelom v Europol
   (Case F-43/09)
   2009/C 180/117
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Parties

      Applicant: Carlo van Heuckelom (the Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J. Damminghs and D Dane, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

      Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

   Annulment of the decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a single step of classification in grade and the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the complaint brought against the first decision.

      Form of order sought

   The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

               —

               annul the decision of 19 January 2009 rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the decision of 14 July 2008, and annul also that latter decision of 14 July 2008 awarding the applicant a singe step from 1 April 2008;

               —

               order Europol to pay the costs.


title: Case C-43/05: Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
               2.4.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 82/14

         Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany
   (Case C-43/05)
   (2005/C 82/30)
   Language of the case: German
   An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by Denis Martin and Horstpeter Kreppel, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
   The Commission claims that the Court should:

               1.

               declare that, by failing to adopt, by 2 December 2003, the/all laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 2000/78 (1) of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, or to inform the Commission thereof, the Federal Republic of Germany has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 18 of that directive. This does not relate to the provisions of the directive regarding age discrimination;

               2.

               order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The period for transposition of Directive 2000/78/EC with regard to the provisions of the directive on age discrimination has not yet expired for the Federal Republic of Germany. The period for transposition of the remaining provisions of the directive expired on 2 December 2003.

      (1)  OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16.


title: Case T-100/00: Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Franco Campoli against the Commission of the European Communities

text:
24.6.2000             EN                      Official Journal of the European Communities                                         C 176/27
Action brought on 19 April 2000 by Danielle Dubigh                       Pleas in law and main arguments
  against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                         The subject-matter of the contested decision is an investment
                         (Case T-96/00)
                                                                         subsidy of DEM 9 million granted by the Bundesanstalt für
                                                                         vereinigungsbedingte Sonderaufgaben (‘BvS’), alternatively by
                        (2000/C 176/46)                                  its subsidiary Leuna-Werke GmbH, to Linde AG in connection
                                                                         with the construction of a new carbon monoxide plant
                                                                         in Leuna (Saxony-Anhalt). In the contested decision, the
                   (Language of the case: French)                        Commission accepted 35 % of the total investment costs as
                                                                         being permissible State regional aid for Saxony-Anhalt. The
                                                                         applicant contests that part of the decision in which the
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                         Commission declares the remainder of the investment subsidy
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                         to be incompatible with the common market and requires the
European Communities on 19 April 2000 by Danielle Dubigh,
                                                                         Federal Republic of Germany to demand that it be repaid.
residing in Brussels, represented by Jean-Noël Louis and
Véronique Peere, of the Brussels Bar.
                                                                         In support of its claim, the applicant asserts that the investment
The applicant claims that the Court should:                              subsidy does not constitute State aid within the meaning of
                                                                         Article 87 EC. Instead, what is involved is a measure based
— annul the decision of the selection board in competition               solely on commercial considerations which has been taken by
    COM/C/2/99 rejecting the application submitted by the                the BvS in the context of negotiations following on from
    applicant;                                                           a privatisation agreement concluded in 1993 between its
                                                                         predecessor, the Treuhandanstalt, and UCB Chemie GmbH.
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  Consequently, on the basis of the relevant findings made by
                                                                         the Commission with regard to the ‘Treuhand scheme’, the
                                                                         subsidy cannot be categorised as State aid.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                         Moreover, the Commission has made no findings, or no
The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as in Case              adequate findings, regarding the incompatibility of the alleged
T-95/00 Zaur-Gora v Commission.                                          aid with the common market. The assumption that any grant
                                                                         of aid to the applicant for the construction of a new carbon
                                                                         monoxide plant is liable to distort competition is based on an
                                                                         erroneous assessment of the market concerned. In addition,
                                                                         no relevant findings have been made with regard to any
                                                                         adverse effect on trade between Member States.
Action brought on 21 April 2000 by Linde AG against the
         Commission of the European Communities
                         (Case T-98/00)
                        (2000/C 176/47)
                                                                         Action brought on 20 April 2000 by Franco Campoli
                                                                           against the Commission of the European Communities
                  (Language of the case: German)
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-                                         (Case T-100/00)
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 21 April 2000 by Linde AG, of
Wiesbaden (Federal Republic of Germany), represented by                                           (2000/C 176/48)
Hans-Jürgen Rabe, Rechtsanwalt, of Messrs Gaedertz Rechtsan-
wälte, Brussels.
                                                                                (Language of the case: French)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— annul Articles 2 and 3 of Decision K(2000) 64 final of                 An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
    18 January 2000 concerning State aid granted by Germany              ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
    in favour of Linde AG;                                               European Communities on 20 April 2000 by Franco Campoli,
                                                                         residing in Brussels, represented by Sergio Diana, of the
— order the defendant to pay the costs.                                  Brussels Bar.
 ---pagebreak--- C 176/28              EN                    Official Journal of the European Communities                                   24.6.2000
The applicant claims that the Court should:                            represented by J. Stuyck, of the Brussels Bar, with an address
                                                                       for service in Luxembourg at the Chambers of Arendt &
— annul the two decisions of the Commission of 11 June                 Medernach, 8-10 Rue Mathias Hardt.
    1999 and 2 December 1999 transferring the applicant
    from the ‘Foodstuffs — Legislation and scientific and              The applicant claims that the Court should:
    technical aspects’ unit to the ‘Food production and biotech-
    nology’ unit;                                                      — declare the action admissible and well founded;
— annul the appointment of another official to the ‘Foodstuffs         — annul the Commission Decision of 31 January 2000
    — Legislation and scientific and technical aspects’ unit;               reducing the amount referred to in Decision C (1994)
                                                                            3059 of 25 November 1994 approving the grant of
— order the European Commission to pay compensation for                     assistance through the European Union, European Social
    the material and non-material losses suffered;                          Fund, for an operational programme in Belgium (Flemish
                                                                            Community) under the Community support framework
— order the European Commission to pay the costs.                           covered by Objective No 3;
                                                                       — order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant contests, in particular, the decision transferring       Pleas in law and main arguments
him, as deputy head of Unit III.E.1, to Unit III.E.2 within the
Industry Directorate.                                                  The applicant submits that the contested decision is based on
                                                                       an incorrect rejection of the lump-sum and result oriented
In support of his claims, the applicant maintains that:                financing which the applicant followed in compliance with the
                                                                       letter and spirit of the Community rules.
— the Commission has erred in its assessment of his abilities
    and of the situation existing within the unit;                     Moreover, the contested decision ignores the powers of the
                                                                       Member States to specify the method of financing products
— the Commission has infringed the rights of the defence,              within the Community in compliance with the Community
    since the contested decisions constituted, in reality, disci-      objectives.
    plinary measures;
— the appointment of another official to his former post was
    not in the interests of the service;
— insufficient reasons were given for the contested decisions;
— the Commission has misused its powers.                               Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta
                                                                         against the Commission of the European Communities
                                                                                (Case T-104/00)
                                                                                (2000/C 176/50)
Action brought on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds voor
de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap                                       (Language of the case: French)
    against Commission of the European Communities
                                                                       An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
                        (Case T-102/00)                                ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
                                                                       European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Giovanni Cubeta,
                                                                       residing at Etterbeek (Belgium), represented by Chantal
                        (2000/C 176/49)                                Moreau, of the Brussels Bar, and Patrick Birden, of the
                                                                       Luxembourg Bar.
                  (Language of the case: Dutch)                        The applicant claims that the Court should:
An action against the Commission of the European Communi-              — rule that the applicant is entitled to payment of the daily
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the                  subsistence allowance and to receive the second part of the
European Communities on 25 April 2000 by Vlaams Fonds                       installation allowance for his daughter upon his being
voor de Sociale Integratie van Personen met een Handicap,                   transferred to Brussels in January 1999.


title: Case C-222/12: Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet (Road transport  — Regulation (EC) No 561/2006  — Obligation to use a tachograph  — Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance  — Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site)

text:
               5.5.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 135/3

         Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 13 March 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tartu ringkonnakohus — Estonia) — A. Karuse AS v Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet
   (Case C-222/12) (1)

   ((Road transport - Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 - Obligation to use a tachograph - Derogation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance - Vehicle transporting gravel from the loading site to the road maintenance works site))
   2014/C 135/03
   Language of the case: Estonian

      Referring court

   Tartu ringkonnakohus

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: A. Karuse AS

      Defendant: Politsei- ja Piirivalveamet

      Re:

   Request for a preliminary ruling — Tartu Ringkonnakohus — Interpretation of Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85 (OJ 2006 L 102, p. 1) — Obligation to use a tachograph — Exception to the obligation for vehicles used in connection with road maintenance — Tipping lorry with a maximum weight of 25,5 tonnes carrying gravel along the public highway from a quarry to a site of road repair and maintenance works.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The concept of ‘vehicles used in connection with road maintenance’, in Article 13(1)(h) of Regulation (EC) No 561/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the harmonisation of certain social legislation relating to road transport and amending Council Regulations (EEC) No 3821/85 and (EC) No 2135/98 and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 3820/85, which vehicles can be exempted from the use of a tachograph, must be interpreted as meaning that it covers vehicles transporting material to a road maintenance works site, provided that the transport is wholly and exclusively connected with those works and constitutes an ancillary activity to them. It is for the national court to ascertain whether that is the case, taking account of all the relevant factors in the main proceedings.

      (1)  OJ C 209, 14.7.2012.