title: Case C-531/03: Action brought on 18 December 2003 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Federal Republic of Germany

text:
C 59/8                   EN                        Official Journal of the European Union                                           6.3.2004
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.               Action brought on 18 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           of the European Communities against the Federal Repub-
                                                                                lic of Germany
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                                (Case C-531/03)
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
28 December 2002.                                                                                (2004/C 59/14)
(1) OJ 2000 L 332, p. 81.
                                                                           An action against the Federal Republic of Germany was
                                                                           brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties on 18 December 2003 by the Commission of the European
                                                                           Communities, represented by Josef Christian Schieferer, of the
                                                                           Legal Service of the Commission of the European Communi-
                                                                           ties, and Florence Simonetti, a national civil servant on
Action brought on 15 December 2003 by the Commission
                                                                           secondment to the Legal Service of the Commission, acting as
of the European Communities against the Kingdom of the
                                                                           Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.
                             Netherlands
                          (Case C-528/03)
                                                                           The applicant claims that the Court should:
                           (2004/C 59/13)
                                                                           1.    Declare that the Federal Republic of Germany has failed
                                                                                to fulfil its obligations under Article 4, in conjunction
                                                                                with point 7(b) and (c) of Annex I and point 10(e) of
An action against the Kingdom of the Netherlands was brought                     Annex II, of Council Directive 85/337/EEC (1)of 27 June
before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on                       1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public
15 December 2003 by the Commission of the European                               and private projects on the environment, as amended by
Communities, represented by K. Simonsson and W. Wils,                            Council Directive 97/11/EC (2) of 3 March 1997,
acting as Agents.
                                                                                —     in so far as that directive has, in particular, not yet
                                                                                been transposed for purposes of road construction
The applicant claims that the Court should:                                            projects in the federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate
                                                                                and
1.    declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations
      and administrative provisions necessary to comply with
      Commission Directive 2002/35/EC (1) of 25 April 2002                       —     in so far as it is possible for road construction
      concerning the setting up of a harmonised safety regime                          projects in the federal Land of North Rhine-
      for fishing vessels of 24 metres in length and over, or, in                      Westphalia to be granted development consent
      any event, by failing to notify the Commission of those                          without an environmental impact assessment being
      measures, the Kingdom of the Netherlands has failed to                           carried out;
      fulfil its obligations under that directive;
                                                                           2.    Order the Federal Republic of Germany to pay the costs
2.    order the Kingdom of the Netherlands to pay the costs.                     of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                           Pleas in law and main arguments
The period for implementation of the Directive expired on
1 January 2003.
                                                                           The period for transposition of Directive 97/11/EC amending
(1) OJ 2002 L 112, p. 21.
                                                                           Directive 85/337/EEC expired on 14 March 1999 without the
                                                                           federal Land of Rhineland-Palatinate having adopted the
                                                                           necessary measures to implement it, in particular in relation to
                                                                           road construction projects.
 ---pagebreak--- 6.3.2004                EN                      Official Journal of the European Union                                            C 59/9
Furthermore, there are no legal measures in place in the                According to the second paragraph of Article 95 EC, the
federal Land of North Rhine-Westphalia for ensuring that an             derogation from Article 94 contained in Article 95, para-
environmental impact assessment will be carried out if, under           graph 1, shall not apply to fiscal provisions. In the view of
the law of that Land, it is to be anticipated that a road               the Commission, the expression ‘fiscal provisions’ is to be
construction project will have a significant impact on the              understood as including rules on taxable persons, taxable
environment.                                                            events, basis of taxation, rates and exemptions, along with the
                                                                        detailed rules on assessment and enforcement. Conversely, the
                                                                        Commission submits that that logic does not extend to mutual
(1) OJ 1985 L 175, p. 40.                                               assistance in tax matters. Measures of cooperation, verification
(2) OJ 1997 L 73, p. 5.                                                 and information whose purpose is to facilitate the elimination
                                                                        of frontiers without affecting the substance of Member States’
                                                                        own tax rules do not impinge on the tax jurisdiction of
                                                                        Member States.
                                                                        The Commission submits that the provisions of Regulation
Action brought on 19 December 2003 by the Commission                    1798/2003 cannot properly be regarded as effecting a harmon-
of the European Communities against the Council of the                  isation or approximation of national tax rules. Regulation
                         European Union                                 1798/2003 is concerned solely with the exchange of infor-
                                                                        mation in relation to transactions which take place across
                                                                        frontiers within the Community, in order to enable national
                         (Case C-533/03)                                tax authorities to cooperate with each other and with the
                                                                        Commission to ensure compliance with the law on VAT in the
                                                                        absence of frontier controls. It does not affect any rules which
                          (2004/C 59/15)                                are properly to be regarded as ‘fiscal provisions’ within the
                                                                        meaning of Article 95(2) EC or ‘legislation concerning turnover
                                                                        taxes’ within the meaning of Article 93 EC.
An action against the Counci of the European Union was
brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communi-
ties on 19 December 2003 by the Commission of the European              For its part, Directive 2003/93 amends Directive 77/799 solely
Communities, represented by R. Lyal, acting as agent, with an           by the deletion of value added tax and the insertion of taxes
address for service in Luxembourg.                                      on insurance premiums. It does not affect the nature of that
                                                                        directive, which concerns the exchange of information and
                                                                        thus does not constitute the harmonisation of ‘fiscal provisions’
The Applicant claims that the Court should:                             within the meaning of Article 95(2) EC.
1.    declare that Council Regulation (EC) No 1798/2003 of
      7 October 2003 on administrative cooperation in the
      field of value added tax and repealing Regulation (EEC)
      No 218/92 (1) and Council Directive 2003/93/EC of                 It must therefore be concluded that the object of the legislation
      7 October 2003 amending Council Directive 77/799/                 in question is the completion of the internal market. It does
      EEC concerning mutual assistance by the competent                 not constitute a set of measures harmonising tax provisions.
      authorities of the Member States in the field of direct and       The correct legal base is thus Article 95 EC.
      indirect taxation (2) are void;
2.    maintain the effects of these measures until the entry into
      force of legislation adopted on the correct legal basis;          The Commission accordingly submits that Council Regulaton
                                                                        (EC) No 1798/2003 and Council Directive 2003/93/EC were
3.    order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs.         adopted on an incorrect legal basis, in disregard of the
                                                                        prerogatives of the Parliament.
Pleas in law and main arguments
                                                                        (1) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 1.
                                                                        (2) OJ L 264, 15.10.2003, p. 23.
The issue in this case is whether Articles 93 and 94 on the one
hand or Article 95 EC on the other is the correct legal basis
for the adoption of a measure such as Regulation 1798/2003
and Directive 2003/93.


title: Order of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 10 March 2005 in Case C-178/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Franz Marhold v Land Baden-Württemberg (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure — Workers — Civil servants working for employers in the national public sector — University professor — Grant of an annual special allowance)

text:
               23.7.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 182/21

      ORDER OF THE COURT

   (Fourth Chamber)
   of 10 March 2005
   in Case C-178/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht in Franz Marhold v Land Baden-Württemberg (1)

   (Article 104(3) of the Rules of Procedure - Workers - Civil servants working for employers in the national public sector - University professor - Grant of an annual special allowance)
   (2005/C 182/39)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case C-178/04: reference for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court) (Germany), made by decision of 28 January 2004, received at the Court on 15 April 2004, in the proceedings between Franz Marhold and Land Baden-Württemberg — the Court (Fourth Chamber), composed of K. Lenaerts, President of the Chamber, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and E. Levits (Rapporteur), Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate General; R. Grass, Registrar, made an order on 10 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:
   Article 39 EC precludes a national law which refuses the right to an annual special allowance to a civil servant who leaves his employment before 31 March of the following year in order to take up employment in the civil service of another Member State, although it grants the right to such an allowance where the civil servant's new post is within the national civil service.

      (1)  OJ C 156 of 12. 06. 2004.


title: Judgment of the Court of 11 December 2003 in Case C-322/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main): Deutscher Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV, Jacques Waterval (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directives 92/28/EEC and 2000/31/EC — National legislation restricting internet sales of medicinal products for human use by pharmacies established in another Member State — Doctor's prescription required for supply — Prohibition on advertising the sale of medicinal products by mail order)

text:
21.2.2004                 EN                              Official Journal of the European Union                                                 C 47/5
for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
court between Debra Allonby and Accrington & Rossendale
College, Education Lecturing Services, trading as Protocol                                              of 11 December 2003
Professional, formerly Education Lecturing Services Secretary
of State for Education and Employment, on the interpretation
of Article 141 EC, the Court, composed of: V. Skouris,                            in Case C-322/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann and                             from the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main): Deutscher
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues (Presidents of Chambers), A. La Pergola,                     Apothekerverband eV v 0800 DocMorris NV, Jacques
J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken, N. Colneric (Rappor-                                               Waterval (1)
teur) and S. von Bahr, Judges; L.A. Geelhoed, Advocate General;
L. Hewlett, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar, has given                 (Articles 28 EC and 30 EC — Directives 92/28/EEC and
a judgment on 13 January 2004, in which it has ruled:                             2000/31/EC — National legislation restricting internet
                                                                                sales of medicinal products for human use by pharmacies
                                                                                established in another Member State — Doctor’s prescription
1.     In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings,                    required for supply — Prohibition on advertising the sale of
       Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a                                    medicinal products by mail order)
       woman whose contract of employment with an undertaking has
       not been renewed and who is immediately made available to                                            (2004/C 47/08)
       her previous employer through another undertaking to provide
       the same services is not entitled to rely, vis-à-vis the intermediary
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
       undertaking, on the principle of equal pay, using as a basis for
       comparison the remuneration received for equal work or work
       of the same value by a man employed by the woman’s previous                (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
       employer.                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
2.     Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that a
       woman in circumstances such as those of the main proceedings               In Case C-322/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
       is not entitled to rely on the principle of equal pay in order to          EC by the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) for a
       secure entitlement to membership of an occupational pension                preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
       scheme for teachers set up by State legislation of which only              court between Deutscher Apothekerverband eV and 0800
       teachers with a contract of employment may become members,                 DocMorris NV, Jacques Waterval, on the interpretation of
       using as a basis for comparison the remuneration, including                Articles 28 EC and 30 EC and of Article 1(3) and (4) and
       such a right of membership, received for equal work or work of             Articles 2 and 3 of Council Directive 92/28/EEC of 31 March
       the same value by a man employed by the woman’s previous                   1992 on the advertising of medicinal products for human use
       employer.                                                                  (OJ 1992 L 113, p. 13), in conjunction with Directive 2000/
                                                                                31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June
                                                                                2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services,
3.     In the absence of any objective justification, the requirement,            in particular electronic commerce, in the internal market (‘the
       imposed by State legislation, of being employed under a contract           Directive on electronic commerce’) (OJ 2000 L 178, p. 1),
       of employment as a precondition for membership of a pension                the Court, composed of: V. Skouris, President, P. Jann,
       scheme for teachers is not applicable where it is shown that,              C.W.A. Timmermans, C. Gulmann, J.N. Cunha Rodrigues and
       among the teachers who are workers within the meaning of                   A. Rosas (Presidents of Chambers), D.A.O. Edward (Rappor-
       Article 141(1) EC and fulfil all the other conditions for                  teur), A. La Pergola, J.-P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, F. Macken,
       membership, a much lower percentage of women than of men                   N. Colneric and S. von Bahr, Judges; C. Stix-Hackl, Advocate
       is able to fulfil that condition. The formal classification of a           General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
       self-employed person under national law does not change the                has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has
       fact that a person must be classified as a worker within the               ruled:
       meaning of that article if his independence is merely notional.
                                                                                1.    a)   A national prohibition on the sale by mail order of
4.     Article 141(1) EC must be interpreted as meaning that where                           medicinal products the sale of which is restricted to
       State legislation is at issue, the applicability of that provision                    pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as
       vis-à-vis an undertaking is not subject to the condition that the                     the prohibition laid down in Paragraph 43(1) of the
       worker concerned can be compared with a worker of the other                           Arzneimittelgesetz (Law on medicinal products) in the
       sex who is or has been employed by the same employer and who                          version of 7 September 1998, is a measure having an
       has received higher pay for equal work or work of equal value.                        effect equivalent to a quantitative restriction for the
                                                                                purposes of Article 28 EC.
                                                                                (b) Article 30 EC may be relied on to justify a national
(1) OJ C 289 of 13.10.2001.                                                                  prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products
                                                                                which may be sold only in pharmacies in the Member
                                                                                State concerned in so far as the prohibition covers
                                                                                medicinal products subject to prescription. However,
                                                                                Article 30 EC cannot be relied on to justify an absolute
 ---pagebreak--- C 47/6                   EN                          Official Journal of the European Union                                               21.2.2004
            prohibition on the sale by mail order of medicinal products      Heerlen, on the interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC
            which are not subject to prescription in the Member State        Treaty (subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,
            concerned.                                                       after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of the
                                                                             EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty, repealed
      (c)   Questions 1(a) and 1(b) do not need to be assessed               by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of the EC
            differently where medicinal products are imported into a         Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and 18 EC) and
            Member State in which they are authorised, having been           the provisions of Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June
            previously obtained by a pharmacy in another Member              1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) and
            State from a wholesaler in the importing Member State.           Council Directive 88/361/EEC of 24 June 1988 for the
                                                                             implementation of Article 67 of the Treaty (OJ 1988 L 178,
2.    Article 88(1) of Directive 2001/83/EC of the European                  p. 5), the Court (Fifth Chamber), composed of: P. Jann,
      Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the                acting as the President of the Fifth Chamber, D.A.O. Edward
      Community code relating to medicinal products for human use            (Rapporteur) and A. La Pergola, Judges; J. Mischo, Advocate
      precludes a national prohibition on advertising the sale by mail       General; H.A. Rühl, Principal Administrator, for the Registrar,
      order of medicinal products which may be supplied only in              has given a judgment on 11 December 2003, in which it has
      pharmacies in the Member State concerned, such as the                  ruled:
      prohibition laid down in Paragraph 8(1) of the Heilmittelwer-
      begesetz (Law on the advertising of medicinal products), in so
      far as the prohibition covers medicinal products which are not         Community law precludes national legislation concerning the assess-
      subject to prescription.                                               ment of tax due on the inheritance of immovable property situated in
                                                                             the Member State concerned according to which, in order to assess
                                                                             the property’s value, the fact that the person holding legal title was
(1) OJ C 348 of 8.12.2001.                                                   under an unconditional obligation to transfer it to another person
                                                                             who has financial ownership of that property may be taken into
                                                                             account if, at the time of his death, the former resided in that Member
                                                                             State, but may not be taken into account if he resided in another
                                                                             Member State.
                  JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
                                                                             (1) OJ C 331 of 24.11.2001.
                           (Fifth Chamber)
                       of 11 December 2003
in Case C-364/01 (Reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch): The heirs of
H. Barbier v Inspecteur van de Belastingdienst Particulier-                                    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
        en/Ondernemingen buitenland te Heerlen (1)
                                                                                (Fifth Chamber)
(Interpretation of Articles 48 and 52 of the EEC Treaty
(subsequently Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty, now,
                                                                                of 7 January 2004
after amendment, Articles 39 EC and 43 EC), Article 67 of
the EEC Treaty (subsequently Article 67 of the EC Treaty,
repealed by the Treaty of Amsterdam), Articles 6 and 8a of                   in Case C-500/01: Commission of the European Communi-
the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles 12 EC and                                           ties v Kingdom of Spain (1)
18 EC) — Directives 88/361/EEC and 90/364/EEC —
Inheritance tax — Requirement of cross-border economic
                                                                             (Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Market
activity — Prohibition of discrimination on the basis of
                                                                             for telecommunications services — Tariff rebalancing —
                    Member State of residence)
                                                                             Access to the local loop — Directive 90/388/EEC —
                                                                                Article 4(c))
                            (2004/C 47/09)
                     (Language of the case: Dutch)                                                        (2004/C 47/10)
(Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published                            (Language of the case: Spanish)
                    in the European Court Reports)
                                                                             (Provisional translation; the definitive translation will be published
                                                                                in the European Court Reports)
In Case C-364/01: Reference to the Court under Article 234
EC by the Gerechtshof te ’s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) for a
preliminary ruling in the proceedings pending before that
court between the heirs of H. Barbier and Inspecteur van                     In Case C-500/01, Commission of the European Communities
de Belastingdienst Particulieren/Ondernemingen buitenland te                 (Agent: S. Rating) v Kingdom of Spain (Agent: S. Ortiz


title: Case T-337/06: Action brought on 28 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM –Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit Wealth Management)

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/79

         Action brought on 28 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM –Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit Wealth Management)
   (Case T-337/06)
   (2006/C 326/161)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   Parties

      Applicant: UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH
   Form of order sought

               —

               annulment of the contested decision

         Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: UniCredito Italiano

      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UniCredit Wealth Management’ (registration application No 2.330.066) for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’ (No 991.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and figurative mark ‘UNIZINS’ (No 2.016.954) for services in Class 36 (capital investment)

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part in so far as there was held to be a likelihood of confusion as regards capital investments

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: to dismiss the action

      Pleas in law: Misapplication of the theory of the extended protection of what are known as serial marks as formulated by the Court of First Instance in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM [2006] ECR II-0000 (Bainbridge)


title: Case C-96/06: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 — Directive 91/628/EEC — Export refunds — Refusal — Non-compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC — Adverse effect on animal welfare — Burden of proof — Lack of evidence)

text:
               9.5.2008

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 116/3

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 13 March 2008 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Hamburg (Germany)) — Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   (Case C-96/06) (1)

   (Regulation (EC) No 615/98 - Directive 91/628/EEC - Export refunds - Refusal - Non-compliance with Directive 91/628/EEC - Adverse effect on animal welfare - Burden of proof - Lack of evidence)
   (2008/C 116/05)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Finanzgericht Hamburg
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Viamex Agrar Handels GmbH

      Defendant: Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas
   Re:
   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Finanzgericht Hamburg — Interpretation of Article 5(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport (OJ 1998 L 82, p. 19) — Possibility for competent authority to refuse to grant export refunds where it considers, ‘in the light of … all other elements at its disposal’, that the provisions of Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC (OJ 1991 L 340, p. 17) have not been complied with — Burden of proof — Refusal of refunds because of the use of a ship included in a list of ships not complying with the requirements of Directive 91/628/EEC (‘negative list’) in the absence of indications that the wellbeing of the animals was actually affected
   Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Despite the documents produced by the exporter in accordance with Article 5(2) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 615/98 of 18 March 1998 laying down specific detailed rules of application for the export refund arrangements as regards the welfare of live bovine animals during transport, the competent authority may consider, pursuant to Article 5(3) of that regulation, that Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 on the protection of animals during transport and amending Directives 90/425/EEC and 91/496/EEC, as amended by Council Directive 95/29/EC of 29 June 1995, has not been complied with. However, the competent authority can arrive at that conclusion only if it bases itself on the documents referred to in Article 5 of Regulation No 615/98, on the reports referred to in Article 4 of that regulation concerning animal health, or on any other objective element with implications for the welfare of the animals such as to call into question the documents presented by the exporter, it being for the latter to show, if appropriate, that the elements relied on by the competent authority in substantiation of its finding of non compliance with Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, are irrelevant.

               2.

               Pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 615/98, the competent authority may refuse the export refund for failure to comply with the provisions of Directive 91/628, as amended by Directive 95/29, concerning animal health, even in the absence of evidence showing that the welfare of the animals transported was, in fact, adversely affected.

      (1)  OJ C 96, 22.4.2006.


title: Case C-92/12: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — Health Service Executive v SC, AC (Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility — Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 — Child habitually resident in Ireland, where the child has been placed in care on many occasions — Child’s behaviour aggressive and placing herself at risk — Judgment ordering placement of the child in a secure care institution in England — Material scope of the regulation — Article 56 — Procedures for consultation and consent — Obligation to recognise or declare enforceable the decision to place the child in a secure care institution — Provisional measures — Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)

text:
               30.6.2012

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 194/5

         Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 26 April 2012 (Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Ireland) — Health Service Executive v SC, AC
   (Case C-92/12) (1)

   (Jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and in the matters of parental responsibility - Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 - Child habitually resident in Ireland, where the child has been placed in care on many occasions - Child’s behaviour aggressive and placing herself at risk - Judgment ordering placement of the child in a secure care institution in England - Material scope of the regulation - Article 56 - Procedures for consultation and consent - Obligation to recognise or declare enforceable the decision to place the child in a secure care institution - Provisional measures - Urgent preliminary ruling procedure)
   2012/C 194/08
   Language of the case: English

      Referring court

   High Court of Ireland

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Health Service Executive

      Defendants: SC, AC

      In the presence of: Attorney General

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — High Court of Ireland — Interpretation of Article 56 of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (OJ 2003 L 338, p. 1) — Material scope — Decision by an Irish court to place a child, habitually resident in Ireland, in secure care in a therapeutic and educational care institution in the United Kingdom — Procedures for consultation and consent to ensure the effective protection of the child — Requirement that the decision to place the child in secure care be recognised and/or declared enforceable prior to placement?

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               A judgment of a court of a Member State which orders the placement of child in a secure institution providing therapeutic and educational care situated in another Member State and which entails that, for her own protection, the child is deprived of her liberty for a specified period, falls within the material scope of Council Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000.

               2.

               The consent referred to in Article 56(2) of Regulation No 2201/2003 must be given, prior to the making of the judgment on placement of a child, by a competent authority, governed by public law. The fact that the institution where the child is to be placed gives its consent is not sufficient. In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, where a court of a Member State which made the judgment on placement is uncertain whether a consent was validly given in the requested Member State, because it was not possible to identify with certainty the competent authority in the latter State, an irregularity may be corrected in order to ensure that the requirement of consent imposed by Article 56 of Regulation No 2201/2003 has been fully complied with.

               3.

               Regulation No 2201/2003 must be interpreted as meaning that a judgment of a court of a Member State which orders the compulsory placement of a child in a secure care institution situated in another Member State must, before its enforcement in the requested Member State, be declared to be enforceable in that Member State. In order not to deprive that regulation of its effectiveness, the decision of the court of the requested Member State on the application for a declaration of enforceability must be made with particular expedition and appeals brought against such a decision of the court of the requested Member State must not have a suspensive effect.

               4.

               Where a consent to placement under Article 56(2) of Regulation No 2201/2003 has been given for a specified period of time, that consent does not apply to orders which are intended to extend the duration of the placement. In such circumstances, an application for a new consent must be made. A judgment on placement made in a Member State, declared to be enforceable in another Member State, can be enforced in that other Member State only for the period stated in the judgment on placement.

      (1)  OJ C 133, 5.5.2012.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 21 March 2002 in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the European Communities (Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)

text:
C 144/44               EN                       Official Journal of the European Communities                                          15.6.2002
     —     ‘arranging and processing of the payment of charges,            sets imported from Turkey — the Court of First Instance
           namely telephone charges; financing and sales financing         (Third Chamber), composed of: M. Jaeger, President, and
           including arrangement thereof; processing of payments for       K. Lenaerts and J. Azizi, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an
           services and guarantees’ within Class 36;                       order on 21 March 2002, the operative part of which is as
                                                                           follows:
     —     ‘arranging of services and guarantees’ within Class 37;
                                                                           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;
     —     ‘arranging of telecommunications services, namely tele-
           phones, speech recording services, information services;
           telecommunications services, namely telephones, speech          2.    The Commission is to pay all the costs.
           recording services, information services’ within Class 38;
     —     ‘rental and leasing of data processing equipment; booking       (1) OJ C 79 of 18.3.2000.
           and payment processing programming; providing of food
           and drink; arranging and/or reserving hotel or guesthouse
           accommodation’ within Class 42;
2.   As to the remainder, dismisses the action;
3.   Orders the applicant to pay its own costs and half of the
     defendant’s costs; the defendant is to pay the other half of its
     own costs.
                                                                                ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
(1) OJ C 28 of 27.1.2001.
                                                                                of 4 March 2002
                                                                           in Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und
                                                                           Einzelhandel GmbH v Commission of the European
                                                                                Communities (1)
      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE                                 (Action for annulment — Withdrawal of the contested
                                                                                measure — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                        of 21 March 2002
                                                                                (2002/C 144/93)
in Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V. v Commission of the
                   European Communities (1)
                                                                                (Language of the case: German)
(Action for annulment — Imports of television sets from
         Turkey — Case not proceeding to judgment)
                         (2002/C 144/92)                                   In Case T-337/00: Firma Sarah Tex Textil Groß- und Einzelhan-
                                                                           del GmbH, established in Essen (Germany), represented by
                                                                           D. Ehle, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg,
                    (Language of the case: French)                         supported by the Kingdom of Denmark (Agent: J. Molde), v
                                                                           Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot
                                                                           and M. Núñez Müller) — application for annulment of the
                                                                           Commission’s decision C (2000) 1685 final of 29 June 2000,
In Case T-355/99: Vatinel N.V., established in Antwerp                     addressed to the Federal Republic of Germany and relating to
(Belgium), represented by M. Famchon, lawyer, with an address              a remission of import duties — the Court of First Instance
for service in Luxembourg, supported by the Kingdom of the                 (Fifth Chamber), composed of: J. D. Cooke, President, and
Netherlands (Agents: J. van Bakel and H. G. Sevenster), v                  R. Garcı́a-Valdecasas and P. Lindh, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar,
Commission of the European Communities (Agents: R. Tricot                  made an order on 4 March 2002, the operative part of which
and J. Stuyck) — application for annulment of the Com-                     is as follows:
mission’s decision C(1999) 2286 final (REC 12/98) of 22 July
1999 declaring that post-clearance recovery should be effected
and refusing remission of import duties in respect of television           1.    There is no need to give a decision on the present application;


title: Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

text:
               26.11.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 347/37

         Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
   (Case T-495/11)
   2011/C 347/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English

      Parties

      Applicant: Michael Streng (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Pappert, lawyer)

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

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulvio Gismondi (Roma, Italy)

      Form of order sought

               —

               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1348/2010-4, and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal; and

               —

               Order the defendant to pay the costs.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PARAMETRICA’, for services in classes 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6048433

      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30311096 of the word mark ‘parameta’, for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42

      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition

      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 19(2) and (3) in connection with Rule 98(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the submitted documents containing WIPO INID codes are not in the language of the proceedings and/or taken together with the translation provided in the writ of 3 November 2008, do not constitute ‘translation’ within the meaning of Rule 98(1) CTMIR.


title: Case T-735/15: Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — Manifatture Daddato and Laurora (SHOP ART) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for an EU figurative mark SHOP ART — Earlier EU figurative mark art — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

text:
               23.1.2017

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 22/31

         Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — The Art Company B & S v EUIPO — Manifatture Daddato and Laurora (SHOP ART)
   (Case T-735/15) (1)

   ((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark SHOP ART - Earlier EU figurative mark art - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2017/C 022/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: The Art Company B & S, SA (Quel, Spain) (represented by: L. Sánchez Calderón and J. Villamor Muguerza, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, acting as Agent)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervening before the General Court: Manifatture Daddato SpA (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: D. Russo, lawyer)

      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Sabina Laurora (Trani, Italy)

      Re:

   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between The Art Company B & S, on the one hand, and Manifatture Daddato and Ms Laurora, on the other.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 8 October 2015 (Case R 3050/2014-1);

               2.

               Orders each party to bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.


title: Case C-95/15 P: Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by H & R ChemPharm GmbH against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2014 in Case T-551/08 H & R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission

text:
               27.4.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 138/43

         Appeal brought on 24 February 2015 by H & R ChemPharm GmbH against the judgment delivered on 12 December 2014 in Case T-551/08 H & R ChemPharm GmbH v European Commission
   (Case C-95/15 P)
   (2015/C 138/57)
   Language of the case: German

      Parties

      Appellant: H & R ChemPharm GmbH (represented by: M. Klusmann and S. Thomas, lawyers)

      Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

      Form of order sought

   The appellant claims that the Court should:

               —

               set aside the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 in Case T-551/08 in so far as it affects the appellant;

               —

               in the alternative, reduce appropriately the amount of the fine in the amount of EUR 22 million imposed on the applicant under Article 2 of the contested decision of the defendant of 1 October 2008;

               —

               in the further alternative, refer the case back to the General Court of the European Union for a fresh decision;

               —

               cancel the imposition of Court costs in the amount of EUR 10  000 under Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court;

               —

               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

      Pleas in law and main arguments

   The appeal is against the judgment of the General Court of (Third Chamber) of 12 December 2014 (Reg. No 651533) in Case T-551/08 H & R ChemPharm GmbH v Commission, by which the Court rejected the application to annul Commission Decision No C(2008) 5476 final of 1 October 2008 (Case COMP/39181 — Candle Waxes), in so far as it concerns the appellant.
   The appellant (and applicant at first instance) bases its appeal on the following grounds of appeal:

               1.

               By its first ground of appeal, the appellant alleges, inter alia, an infringement of Article 81 EC [101 TFEU] due to contradictory and insufficient reasoning in the judgment relating to the appellant’s business structure and responsibility, on the basis of which the General Court held that the appellant infringed Article 81 EC. The fundamental contradiction consists in the fact that the General Court treated the appellant and the undertaking Tudapetrol, which is not connected with the appellant, as a single entity for the purposes of liability for the infringement, but in the context of the imposition of the fine treated them as two separate undertakings. Since it is not clear from the General Court’s reasoning whether the appellant and Tudapetrol make up a single undertaking or whether they are two different undertakings, the appellant alleges in addition an infringement of the obligation to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU) and of its fundamental rights of defence.

               2.

               By its second ground of appeal, the appellant alleges a wrongful assessment of the behaviour of an employee who performed several duties in parallel at different legally distinct undertakings. The appellant disputes the fact that it is made responsible for the behaviour of that employee without the General Court ruling on whether the employee undertook the tasks on behalf of the appellant. The General Court’s legal position in that regard infringes Article 81 EC. In addition, the Court infringed the fair hearing principle, since it rejected the appellant’s evidence regarding the actual activities of the employee without legally justifiable grounds (infringement of Article 6 ECHR).

               3.

               By its third ground of appeal, the appellant alleges decisive mistakes in the interpretation of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) with respect to turnover on which the fine is to be based. Those mistakes are due to the fact that the Court included turnover of a third-party undertaking in the calculation of the fine, although it is not disputed that that undertaking did not participate in the infringement and is not economically connected with the appellant. The judgment is also vitiated by a failure to state reasons, on the basis of which third-party turnover was calculated during the setting of the fine despite the lack of economic unity. The General Court’s reasoning therefore infringes not only Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003, but also the requirements in the case-law relating to the proper statement of reasons (Article 296 TFEU).

               4.

               By its fourth ground of appeal, it is claimed in the first place that the General Court, during the setting of the fine, took into consideration turnover of undertakings which was achieved only at the end of the period to which the alleged infringements relate, and applied that turnover to the entire time of the alleged participation. That is incompatible with the practice of the General Court in the parallel judgment in Esso
                   (2). In the Esso judgment, that court ruled on the same issue and held that such conduct on the part of the Commission leads to an artificial increase of the turnover on which the calculation of the fine is based. That discrimination constitutes an infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003. Since the Court did not take a position on the appellant’s objections, the judgment under appeal is also vitiated by a failure to state reasons (Article 296 TFEU). The appellant also claims that the Court erred in its calculation of the turnover, which resulted in the turnover being taken into consideration twice, in infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/20003.

               5.

               By its fifth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges several errors in law in the calculation of the fine, including in particular disproportionality of the fine imposed on the appellant in relation to other undertakings which also participated in the alleged infringement (infringement of Article 23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003). The appellant claims that the Court failed to take into consideration differences between the wrong committed by the appellant and that committed by other participating undertakings, and that it disproportionately assessed the size of the undertaking.

               6.

               By its sixth ground of appeal, the appellant alleges that the Court erred in law when fixing costs in relation to the imposition of additional Court costs which were allegedly caused by the appellant, without further substantiating that imposition (infringement of Article 90(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court and of Article 296 TFEU and Article 6 ECHR). Those costs do not exist, and the appellant was not heard before the decision on costs was made.

      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

      (2)  Case T-540/08, EU:T:2014:630.


title: Case T-245/13: Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission (EAGGF — Guarantee Section — EAGF and EAFRD — Expenditure excluded from financing — Single payment scheme — Key controls — Ancillary controls — Articles 51, 53, 73 and 73a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004)

text:
               19.10.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 346/22

         Judgment of the General Court of 4 September 2015 — United Kingdom v Commission
   (Case T-245/13) (1)

   ((EAGGF - Guarantee Section - EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Single payment scheme - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Articles 51, 53, 73 and 73a of Regulation (EC) No 796/2004))
   (2015/C 346/24)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (represented initially by C. Murrell, M. Holt and E. Jenkinson, and subsequently by M. Holt, acting as Agents, and by D. Wyatt QC, and V. Wakefield, Barrister)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Rossi and K. Skelly, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Action for partial annulment of Commission Implementing Decision 2013/123/EU of 26 February 2013 on excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF), under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2013 L 67, p. 20), as regards one entry in Annex I to the decision relating to a 5,19 % extrapolated correction applied to expenditure incurred in Northern Ireland (United Kingdom) in the financial year 2010, amounting to EUR 16 513 582,57.

      Operative part of the judgment

   The Court:

               1.

               Dismisses the action;

               2.

               Orders the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

      (1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.


title: Case T-364/15 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission (Application for interim measures — Arbitration clause — Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme — Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid — Application for suspension of operation of a measure — Lack of urgency)

text:
               30.5.2016

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 191/31

         Order of the President of the General Court of 7 April 2016 — ADR Center v Commission
   (Case T-364/15 R)
   ((Application for interim measures - Arbitration clause - Agreements concluded for the purpose of carrying out projects subsidised by the European Union within the framework of the ‘Civil Justice’ programme - Enforceable decision of the Commission to recover the sums paid - Application for suspension of operation of a measure - Lack of urgency))
   (2016/C 191/41)
   Language of the case: English

      Parties

      Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: L. Tantalo, lawyer)

      Defendant: European Commission (represented by: L. Cappelletti and J. Estrada de Solà, acting as Agents)

      Re:

   Application to suspend the enforcement of Commission Decision C(2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015 concerning the recovery of a sum of EUR 432 637,97, plus interest, owed by ADR Center Srl with reference to debit notes Nos 3241408192 and 3241409206 relating to EUR 155 507,97 and EUR 277 130 respectively.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The application for interim measures is dismissed.

               2.

               The order of 22 January 2016 is cancelled in so far as it relates to Case T-364/15 R.

               3.

               The costs are reserved.


title: Case C-407/07: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 5 September 2007 — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

text:
               24.11.2007

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 283/13

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden, lodged on 5 September 2007 — Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financiën

   (Case C-407/07)
   (2007/C 283/24)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Referring court
   Hoge Raad der Nederlanden
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Appellant: Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan voor de Intercollegiale Toetsing

      Respondent: Staatssecretaris van Financiën
   Question referred
   Must Article 13.A(1)(f) of the Sixth Directive (1) be construed as covering also services supplied by groups coming within the scope of that provision to their members which are directly necessary for the exercise of those members' exempted activities or activities for which they are not subject to tax and by way of payment for which no more is invoiced than represents the costs incurred in respect of those services, if those services are supplied only to one or more members?

      (1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ L 145, p. 1).


title: Case C-311/12: Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co KG

text:
               13.4.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 108/19

         Order of the President of the Court of 7 February 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Arbeitsgericht Nienburg — Germany) — Heinz Kassner v Mittelweser-Tiefbau GmbH & Co KG
   (Case C-311/12) (1)

   2013/C 108/48
   Language of the case: German
   The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

      (1)  OJ C 287, 22.9.2012.


title: Case C-312/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz

text:
               9.10.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 274/3

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landesarbeitsgericht Köln (Germany) lodged on 29 June 2010 — Land Nordrhein-Westfalen v Melanie Klintz
   (Case C-312/10)
   ()
   2010/C 274/04
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Landesarbeitsgericht Köln

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Nordrhein-Westfalen

      Defendant: Melanie Klintz

      Questions referred

      Question 1

               (a)

               When conducting a legal assessment as to whether an agreement for the renewal of a fixed-term contract is justified in a particular case for objective reasons within the meaning of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work in the Annex to Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, (1) is it compatible with the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement to have reference only to circumstances obtaining at the date of conclusion of that renewal agreement without having regard to how many fixed-term contracts have already preceded that agreement, or

               (b)

               Does the spirit and purpose of Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement, which is to prevent abuse arising from the use of consecutive short-term employment contracts, necessitate the imposition of stricter requirements in relation to ‘objective reasons’ the greater the number of successive fixed-term employment contracts that have already preceded the one that is to be assessed or the longer the period during which the employee concerned has already been employed under successive fixed-term contracts?

      Question 2

   Does Clause 5(1) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work preclude the application of a provision of national law such as Paragraph 14(1)(7) of the Law on part-time working and fixed-term contracts (Gesetz über Teilzeitarbeit und befristete Arbeitsverträge, ‘the TzBfG’) which justifies successive fixed terms of employment contracts in the public sector alone for the ‘objective reason’ that the employee is paid out of budgetary funds provided for fixed-term employment, whereas in the case of employers in the private sector such economic reasons are not recognised as ‘objective reasons’?

      Question 3

               (a)

               Is the provision on fixed-term contracts referred to in the second question (Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG) compatible with the framework agreement if the budgetary rule to which Paragraph 14(1)(7) TzBfG refers constitutes a sufficiently specific purpose for the fixed term with a particular connection to the activity in question and the conditions under which it is carried out (see second paragraph of the summary of the judgment in Case C-212/04 Adeneler [2006] ECR I 6057)?

      If Question 3(a) is answered in the affirmative:

               (b)

               Is there such a sufficiently specific purpose if the budgetary rule, such as Paragraph 7(3) of the Gesetz über die Feststellung der Haushaltspläne des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (Law determining the budget of the Land of North-Rhine Westphalia, ‘HG 2004/2005’) in this case, merely provides that the budgetary funds are intended for a fixed-term activity as ‘temporary staff’?

      If Question 3(b) is answered in the affirmative:

               (c)

               Does this apply even if the activity of ‘temporary staff’ in this sense is understood to mean not only an activity that serves to cover either a temporary increase in work or the temporary loss of a core member of staff but also where the term ‘temporary staff’ is also deemed applicable if the employee is paid out of budgetary funds that are available because of the temporary loss of a core member of staff working in the same department, although the ‘temporary staff’ member is employed to do work that is categorised as falling within the ambit of the employer’s fixed and permanent needs and has no substantive connection with the activity of the core member of staff lost, or

               (d)

               Does interpretation of the term ‘temporary staff’ in the manner described in Question 3(c) run counter to the spirit and purpose of the framework agreement on fixed-term work, which is to prevent abuse arising from the use of consecutive short-term employment contracts, and to the principle, laid down in Angelidaki (second paragraph of the summary of the judgment in Joined Cases C-378/07 to C-380/07 [2009] ECR I-3071), that Clause 5(1)(a) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work precludes the application of national legislation ‘in such a way that the renewal of successive fixed-term employment contracts in the public sector is deemed to be justified by objective reasons within the meaning of that clause solely on the ground that those contracts are founded on legal provisions allowing them to be renewed in order to meet certain temporary needs when, in fact, those needs are fixed and permanent’?

      Question 4

   Is a Member State in breach of Clause 8(3) of the framework agreement on fixed-term work if it introduces into its national legislation implementing Directive 1999/70/EC a budgetary reason for a fixed term such as that described in Question 2, which is of general application to the whole of its public sector but under its national legal system prior to the adoption of Directive 1999/70/EC only existed in comparable form in small pockets of the public sector (higher education)? Does such a breach mean that the national rule can no longer be applied?

      (1)  OJ 1999 L 175, p. 43.


title: Order of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2005 in Case T-84/04 Axiom Medical, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition — Withdrawal of opposition — No need to adjudicate)

text:
               25.6.2005

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 155/22

      ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

   of 8 March 2005
   in Case T-84/04 Axiom Medical, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

   (Community trade mark - Opposition - Withdrawal of opposition - No need to adjudicate)
   (2005/C 155/44)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-84/04: Axiom Medical, Inc., established in Rancho Dominguez (United States of America), represented by R. Köbbing, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), represented by G. Schneider, acting as Agent, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Paul Hartmann Aktiengesellschaft, established in Heidenheim (Germany), — ACTION for annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 December 2003 (Case R 193/2002-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Axiom Medical, Inc. and Paul Hartmann Aktiengesellschaft — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; H. Jung, Registrar, made an order on 8 March 2005, the operative part of which is as follows:

               1.

               There is no need to adjudicate on the application;

               2.

               Each party shall bear its own costs.

      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.


title: Case C-420/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2006 — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/27

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin (Germany) lodged on 16 October 2006 — Rüdiger Jager v Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   (Case C-420/06)
   (2006/C 326/55)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Schwerin
   Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Rüdiger Jager

      Defendant: Amt für Landwirtschaft Bützow
   Question referred
   Can Article 2(2) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests (1) be construed as meaning that a provision imposing a more favourable penalty (concerning livestock aid) is to be applied retroactively even if that provision in principle only applies for a period of time during which livestock aid in the Member State concerned is no longer granted as a direct payment has been introduced?

      (1)  OJ 1995 L 312, p. 1.


title: Case T-316/06: Action brought on 9 November 2006 — Commission v Premium

text:
               30.12.2006

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 326/68

         Action brought on 9 November 2006 — Commission v Premium
   (Case T-316/06)
   (2006/C 326/143)
   Language of the case: French
   Parties

      Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: E. Montaguti, Agent, assisted by J.-L. Fagnart and F. Longfils, lawyers)

      Defendant: Premium SA
   Form of order sought

               —

               declare the application to be admissible and well founded, and, in consequence:

               —

               order Premium SA to pay a principal amount of EUR 88 594,493, representing EUR 57 605,74 in respect of the contract ISAR A 2052 and EUR 30 988,74 in respect of the contract KAVAS-2 A2019;

               —

               order Premium SA to pay the default interest due on the amount of EUR 57 605,74 for the ISAR contract (at the rate specified in the provisions of French law applicable to the contract);

               —

               order Premium SA to pay the default interest due on the principal amount of EUR 30 988,74 for the KAVAS-2 contract (at the rate specified in the provisions of Danish law applicable to the contract);

               —

               order Premium SA to pay the costs.

         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The European Community, represented by the European Commission, entered into two contracts with a consortium on 11 March 1992 and 29 December 1993, respectively. One of the members of that consortium was a company for which the defendant was an associated contractor. Those contracts concerned, respectively, the KAVAS-2 A2019 project (‘Knowledge acquisition visualisation and assessment system’) and the ISAR-AIM A2052 project (‘Integration System Architecture’), carried out under a specific research and technological development programme in the field of information technologies (1990 to 1994) adopted by Council Decision 91/394/EC (1).
   The contracts set out the amounts of the eligible costs for the projects on the basis of which the Community financial contribution was calculated. In accordance with the provisions of those contracts, all payments made by the Commission were to be regarded as advance payments pending approval in the final report. If the total financial contribution to be paid by the Commission were to prove lower than the payments already made, the contracting parties undertook to repay the difference to the Commission without delay. The contracts also provided that the contracting parties were jointly and severally liable for any failure to meet contractual obligations, except where one of them failed to submit financial information or provided financial information that was false or incomplete. In those cases, the party concerned was to incur full liability.
   Under the contracts, the consortium was required to submit regular statements of expenditure, as well as regular reports on the progress of the works.
   The financial audit carried out by the Commission in 1996 disclosed several items of non-eligible expenditure invoiced by Premium SA. In its comments on the audit report, the defendant stated that it considered the report's rejection of a number of costs to be unacceptable. Following an exchange of correspondence with the defendant, the Commission issued debit notes to Premium SA, which contested them. In so far as certain advance payments taken into consideration by the Commission in its first debit notes had not been transferred to Premium SA by the coordinator, the Commission issued new debit notes itemising the amounts actually overpaid, while maintaining its position vis-à-vis the findings of the audit report regarding the non-eligible expenditure invoiced by the defendant. The new notes were also contested by Premium SA.
   Several times the Commission presented requests for payment again where earlier requests had elicited no reaction from the defendant. As a consequence, on the basis of the arbitration clauses contained in the contracts, the Commission has brought the present proceedings claiming that the Court should order Premium SA to reimburse part of the advance payment made by the Community, together with default interest, on the ground that the defendant has failed to substantiate by relevant argument its refusal to accept the Commission's position regarding the expenditure that the audit report found to be non-eligible.

      (1)  OJ 1991 L 218, p. 22.


title: Case C-571/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2010 — Kamberaj Servet v Istituto Per l’Edilizia Sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano

text:
               12.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 46/7

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunale di Bolzano (Italy) lodged on 7 December 2010 — Kamberaj Servet v Istituto Per l’Edilizia Sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano
   (Case C-571/10)
   2011/C 46/11
   Language of the case: Italian

      Referring court

   Tribunale di Bolzano

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Servet Kamberaj

      Defendants: Istituto Per l’Edilizia Sociale della Provincia autonoma di Bolzano (IPES), Giunta della Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano, Provincia Autonoma di Bolzano

      Questions referred

               1.

               Does the principle of the primacy [principe de primauté] of European Union law oblige a national court to give full and immediate effect to provisions of European Union law having direct effect, by disapplying provisions of domestic law in conflict with European Union law even if they were adopted in accordance with fundamental principles of the Member State’s constitutional system?

               2.

               When there is a conflict between the provision of domestic law and the European Convention on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’), does the reference to the latter in Article 6 TEU oblige the national court to apply directly Articles 14 [ECHR] and 1 of Additional Protocol No 12 [to the ECHR], disapplying the incompatible source of domestic law, without having first to raise the issue of constitutionality before the national constitutional court?

               3.

               Does European Union law, in particular, Articles 2 and 6 TEU, Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter [of Fundamental Rights of the European Union] and Directives 2000/43/EC and 2003/109/EC preclude a provision of national [more correctly: regional] law, such as that contained in Article 15(3) [more correctly: 15(2)] of Presidential Decree No 670/1972 in conjunction with Articles 1 and 5 of Provincial Law No 13 of 1998 and Decision No 1865 of the Giunta Provinciale of 20 July 2009, inasmuch as that provision, with regard to the allowances concerned, in particular, so-called ‘housing benefit’, attaches importance to nationality by affording to long-term resident workers not belonging to the Union or to stateless persons treatment worse than that afforded to resident Community nationals (whether or not Italian)?

         If those questions [1 to 3] should be answered in the affirmative:

               4.

               In the case of an infringement of general principles of the Union, such as the prohibition of discrimination and the requirement of legal certainty, when there exists national implementing legislation permitting the court to ‘order the cessation of the damaging conduct and adopt any other suitable measure, according to the circumstances and the effects of the discrimination’, requiring the court to ‘order the discriminatory conduct, behaviour or action, if still subsisting, to cease and its effects to be eliminated’ and permitting the court to order ‘a plan for the suppression of the discrimination found to exist, in order to prevent its repetition, within the period fixed in the measure’, must Article 15 of Directive 2000/43/EC, in so far as it provides that sanctions must be effective, proportionate and dissuasive, be interpreted as including, in discrimination found to exist and effects to be eliminated, and in order to avoid unjustified reverse discrimination, all infringements affecting the persons discriminated against, even if they do not form part of the dispute?

         If the previous question [4] should be answered in the affirmative:

               5.

               Is it contrary to European Union law, in particular, to Articles 2 and 6 TEU, Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter and Directives 2000/43/EC and 2003/109/EC, for a provision of national [more correctly: provincial] law to require of non-Community nationals only and not of Community nationals also (whether or not Italian), who receive equal treatment merely in respect of the obligation to have resided for more than 5 years in the territory of the province, the further condition that they should have completed three years of work in order to be eligible for housing benefit?

               6.

               Is it contrary to European Union law, in particular, to Articles 2 and 6 TEU, Articles 21 and 34 of the Charter and Directives 2000/43/EC and 2003/109/EC, for a provision of national [more correctly: provincial] law to require Community nationals (whether or not Italian) to make a declaration that they ethnically belong to or elect to join one of the three linguistic groups of the Alto Adige/Südtirol in order to be eligible for housing benefit?

               7.

               Is it contrary to European Union law, in particular, to Articles 2 and 6 TEU, and to Articles 18, 45 and 49 TFEU in conjunction with Articles 1, 21 and 34 of the Charter, for a provision of national [more correctly: provincial] law to impose on Community nationals (whether or not Italian) the obligation to have resided or worked in the territory of the province for at least five years in order to be eligible for housing benefit?


title: Case C-198/07 P: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Donal Gordon v Commission of the European Communities (Appeal — Career development report — Action for annulment — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Official in a state of total permanent invalidity)

text:
               21.2.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 44/10

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 22 December 2008 — Donal Gordon v Commission of the European Communities
   (Case C-198/07 P) (1)

   (Appeal - Career development report - Action for annulment - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Official in a state of total permanent invalidity)
   (2009/C 44/16)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties

      Appellant: Donal Gordon (represented by: J. Sambon, P.-P. Van Gehuchten and P. Reyniers, avocats)

      Other party to the proceedings: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Krämer, acting as Agents)
   Re:
   Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 7 February 2007 in Case T-175/04 Gordon v Commission — Action for annulment of the applicant's career development report for the 2001-2002 appraisal procedure — Legal interest in bringing proceedings — Official retired on the ground of total permanent invalidity during the proceedings
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:

               1)

               Sets aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 7 February 2007 in Case T-175/04 Gordon v Commission in so far as the Court of First Instance declared that there was no need to rule on the application for annulment brought by Mr Gordon;

               2)

               Dismisses the appeal as inadmissible in so far as it challenges the dismissal of the claim for damages in the judgment of the Court of First Instance referred to;

               3)

               Annuls the decision of the Commission of the European Communities of 11 December 2003 rejecting Mr Gordon's complaint against the decision of 28 April 2003 confirming his career development report for the period from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002;

               4)

               Orders the Commission of the European Communities to pay the costs incurred by Mr Gordon before the Court of Justice of the European Communities and the Court of First Instance of the European Communities.

      (1)  OJ C 129, 9.6.2007.


title: Case C-229/10: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

text:
               17.7.2010

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 195/12

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto (Portugal) lodged on 10 May 2010 — Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira v Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA
   (Case C-229/10)
   2010/C 195/17
   Language of the case: Portuguese

      Referring court

   Tribunal Cível da Comarca do Porto

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Maria Alice Pendão Lapa Costa Ferreira, Alexandra Pendão Lapa Ferreira

      Defendant: Companhia de Seguros Tranquilidade SA

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the interpretation of Article 505 of the Código Civil (Portuguese Civil Code) which, in the case of an accident caused by the conduct of the pedestrian alone, excludes the liability for risk posed by the use of motor vehicles, compatible with the European directives [72/166/EEC, (1) 84/5/EEC, (2) 90/232/EEC, (3) 2000/26/EC, (4) and 2005/14/EC (5)] on compulsory motor vehicle insurance, and in particular with Article 1a of Directive 90/232/EEC?

               2.

               Is the interpretation of Article 570 of the Código Civil, whereby compensation may be reduced or excluded according to the degree of fault of both parties, when a wrongful act of the victim has contributed to or exacerbated the loss, compatible with those directives?

               3.

               And, if the answer is in the affirmative, do those directives preclude an interpretation which allows compensation to be limited or reduced, having regard to the fault of the pedestrian, on the one hand, and the risk posed by the motor vehicle, on the other, in the causation of the accident?

      (1)  Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and to the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability (OJ, English Special Edition 1972 (II), p. 360).

      (2)  Second Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December 1983 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1984 L 8, p. 17).

      (3)  Third Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 1990 L 129, p. 33).

      (4)  Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 May 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles and amending Council Directives 73/239/EEC and 88/357/EEC (Fourth motor insurance Directive) (OJ 2000 L 181, p. 65).

      (5)  Directive 2005/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 amending Council Directives 72/166/EEC, 84/5/EEC, 88/357/EEC and 90/232/EEC and Directive 2000/26/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 14).


title: Case C-145/09: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis

text:
               4.7.2009

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 153/26

         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg (Germany) lodged on 24 April 2009 — Land Baden-Württemberg v Panagiotis Tsakouridis
   (Case C-145/09)
   2009/C 153/48
   Language of the case: German

      Referring court

   Verwaltungsgerichtshof Baden-Württemberg

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Land Baden-Württemberg

      Defendant: Panagiotis Tsakouridis

      Questions referred

               1.

               Is the expression ‘imperative grounds of public security’ used in Article 28(3) of Directive 2004/38/EC (1) of 29 April 2004 to be interpreted as meaning that only irrefutable threats to the external or internal security of the Member State can justify an expulsion, that is, only to the existence of the State and its essential institutions, their ability to function, the survival of the population, external relations and peaceful relations between nations?

               2.

               Under what conditions can the right to enhanced protection against expulsion achieved following ten years of residence in the host Member State laid down in Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC subsequently be lost? Is the condition for the loss of the right of permanent residence laid down in Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied mutatis mutandis in that context?

               3.

               If the question in point 2 above is to be answered in the affirmative and Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied mutatis mutandis: is the enhanced protection against expulsion lost by lapse of time alone, irrespective of the reasons for the absence?

               4.

               Also if the question in point 2 above is to be answered in the affirmative and Article 16(4) of the directive to be applied: can an enforced return to the host Member State in the context of criminal proceedings before expiry of the two-year period have the effect of maintaining the right to increased protection against expulsion, even where following that return the fundamental freedoms cannot be exercised for some time?

      (1)  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 (Text with EEA relevance), OJ L 158, 30.4.2004, p. 77, and Corrigenda in OJ L 229, 29.6.2004, p. 35 and L 204, 4.8.2007, p. 28.


title: Case C-3/14: Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Telefonia Dialog sp. z o.o. v T-Mobile Polska SA, formerly Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA (Reference for a preliminary ruling — Electronic communications networks and services — Directive 2002/21/EC — Articles 7 and 20 — Resolution of disputes between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services — Obligation to implement the procedure laid down in Article 7(3) — Measure which may have an effect on trade between Member States — Directive 2002/19/EC — Article 5 — Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection — Directive 2002/22/EC — Article 28 — Non-geographic numbers)

text:
               15.6.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 198/10

         Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 16 April 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Najwyższy (Poland)) — Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Telefonia Dialog sp. z o.o. v T-Mobile Polska SA, formerly Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA
   (Case C-3/14) (1)

   ((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Electronic communications networks and services - Directive 2002/21/EC - Articles 7 and 20 - Resolution of disputes between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services - Obligation to implement the procedure laid down in Article 7(3) - Measure which may have an effect on trade between Member States - Directive 2002/19/EC - Article 5 - Powers and responsibilities of the national regulatory authorities with regard to access and interconnection - Directive 2002/22/EC - Article 28 - Non-geographic numbers))
   (2015/C 198/13)
   Language of the case: Polish

      Referring court

   Sąd Najwyższy

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicants: Prezes Urzędu Komunikacji Elektronicznej, Telefonia Dialog sp. z o.o.

      Defendant: T-Mobile Polska SA, formerly Polska Telefonia Cyfrowa SA

      Operative part of the judgment

               1.

               Articles 7(3) and 20 of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) must be interpreted as meaning that a national regulatory authority is required to implement the procedure laid down in the former of those provisions if, in resolving a dispute between undertakings providing electronic communications networks or services in a Member State, it intends to impose obligations designed to ensure access to non-geographic numbers in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services (Universal Service Directive) and those obligations may affect trade between Member States.

               2.

               Article 7(3) of Directive 2002/21 must be interpreted as meaning that a measure adopted by a national regulatory authority in order to ensure that end-users have access to non-geographic numbers in accordance with Article 28 of Directive 2002/22 affects trade between Member States, within the meaning of that provision, if it may have, other than in an insignificant manner, an influence, direct or indirect, actual or potential, on that trade, this being a matter for the referring court to determine.

      (1)  OJ C 102, 7.4.2014.


title: Case C-296/09: Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v Maurits Baesen (Social security — Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 — Article 13(2)(d) — Concept of ‘persons treated as’ civil servants — Employment contract with a public authority)

text:
               19.2.2011

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 55/11

         Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 9 December 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie van België — Belgium) — Vlaamse Gemeenschap v Maurits Baesen
   (Case C-296/09) (1)

   (Social security - Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 - Article 13(2)(d) - Concept of ‘persons treated as’ civil servants - Employment contract with a public authority)
   2011/C 55/17
   Language of the case: Dutch

      Referring court

   Hof van Cassatie van België

      Parties to the main proceedings

      Applicant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

      Defendant: Maurits Baesen

      Re:

   Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hof van Cassatie van België — Interpretation of Article 13(2)(a) and (d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1971(II), p. 416.) — Civil servants and persons treated as such — Concept — Person who has concluded an employment contract with a public authority

      Operative part of the judgment

   The meaning of ‘civil servants’ and ‘persons to be treated as such’, as referred to in Article 13(2)(d) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community, as amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 1390/81 of 12 May 1981, is to be determined solely by reference to the national law of the Member State to which the administration employing the person concerned is subject and a person in the situation of the respondent in the main proceedings, who, in a Member State, is subject partly to the social security scheme for civil servants and partly to the social security scheme for employed persons, may thus be subject, in accordance with the provision made by Article 13(2)(d) of Regulation No 1408/71, only to the legislation of the Member State to which the administration employing that person is subject.

      (1)  OJ C 267, 7.11.2009.


title: Case F-71/13: Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 February 2014  — CL v EEA (Staff cases — Member of the temporary staff — Duty to provide assistance — Article 24 of the Staff Regulations — Moral harassment on the part of the hierarchical superior — Rejection of the request for an administrative inquiry to be initiated — Action manifestly inadmissible)

text:
               24.11.2014

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 421/56

         Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 12 February 2014 — CL v EEA
   (Case F-71/13) (1)

   ((Staff cases - Member of the temporary staff - Duty to provide assistance - Article 24 of the Staff Regulations - Moral harassment on the part of the hierarchical superior - Rejection of the request for an administrative inquiry to be initiated - Action manifestly inadmissible))
   2014/C 421/79
   Language of the case: French

      Parties

      Applicant: CL (represented by: S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and D. Abreu Caldas, lawyers)

      Defendant: European Environment Agency (represented by: O. Cornu, acting as Agent, and B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

      Re:

   Application for annulment of the rejection of the applicant’s request for an administrative inquiry to be initiated with a view to proving or clarifying the facts relating to harassment.

      Operative part of the order

               1.

               The action is dismissed.

               2.

               CL shall bear his own costs and pay the costs incurred by the European Environment Agency.

      (1)  OJ C 274 of 21/09/2013, p. 32.